Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LLOYD'S BILL

Order for Third reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

SAINT THOMAS' BURIAL GROUND BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

"A New Training Initiative: A Programme for Action"

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has received to his White Paper entitled "A New Training Initiative: A Programme for Action"—Cmnd. 8455.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I have received an encouraging response to our proposals, which reflects the broad measure of support which the objectives of the new training initiative have received from employers, trade unions and others concerned. I am also encouraged by the extent of commitment to achieving essential long-term reforms in our training system.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his otherwise imaginative and constructive programme to improve the training of young persons is deficient in respect of the young disabled? Will he allow me to bring a deputation to see him on that point?

Mr. Tebbit: I should be only too pleased if my hon. Friend did that.

Mr. Ashley: What does the Secretary of State mean by a "broad measure of support"? Does that include the trade unions? Is he aware that, under these proposals, the extent of trade union participation will now depend on the employers? Is he further aware that the employers' role will no longer be to train workers but to poach them from good employers? Will that not sour industrial relations?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. The whole of the new training iniative, with minor exceptions round the edges, is common ground between the Government, the Manpower

Services Commission and most of the trade union movement. Opposition Front Bench spokesmen may want to stir up trouble, but there will be no trouble unless it is stirred up.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in his former constituency around Waltham Abbey, young people are requesting more facilities? We cannot, of course, have centres everywhere, but is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are adequate centres in Enfield and other areas serving that part of the country?

Mr. Tebbit: If there are difficulties, I should be happy to consider areas in my old constituency, to which my hon. Friend referred. However, in general, employers and others have been very good in coming forward with offers of places for the YOP. I hope that they will be similarly well disposed towards the youth training scheme which takes over in September next year.

Mr. Barry Jones: Has not the right hon. Gentleman bungled the introduction of his scheme by including the wretched £15 a week and an element of compulsion? Will he confirm that his proposals have been humiliatingly and overwhelmingly rejected by the MSC's task group of union, education and commercial leaders? Has not the right hon. Gentleman failed the nation and missed a golden opportunity?

Mr. Tebbit: The short answer is "No, Sir". There has been no bungle and there will be no compulsion. The proposals have not been rejected by the MSC's high level working group, which is not due to report until April.

Minimum Wages

Mr. Cadbury: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the role of the wages councils and minimum wages legislation in the light of the serious problems of youth unemployment.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): The workings of the Wages Councils Act are kept constantly under review. The councils, which are independent of the Government, set minimum rates. They comprise employers, trades unions and independent members. The Government have made plain to all negotiators their view that excessive wage awards can only damage the employment prospects of young people.

Mr. Cadbury: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in many industries wages councils have set minimum wage levels above the rates that enable people to qualify for the young workers' scheme? Is there not a danger that that scheme will be undermined by the activities of the wages councils? Does he further agree that the employment prospects for young people in general would be greatly improved if minimum wages legislation for young people were done away with?

Mr. Alison: I agree with my hon. Friend that the young workers scheme holds out real and positive prospects for job opportunities for youngsters. I am glad that he endorses and welcomes that scheme. I assure him that very few wages councils of which I am aware have set minimum rates for youngsters that have the effect of excluding them from the young workers scheme. However, there are one or two. The attention of all wages councils has been drawn to the young workers scheme

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that the 3 million people now covered by wages councils represent some of the lowest paid workers in Britain? Does not his decision last year to reduce by one-third the number of his Department's inspectors mean that even those low wages may not properly be enforced?

Mr. Alison: Many of those whose wage rates are fixed and covered by wages councils are paid well above the wages councils' minimum rates.

Mr. Cockeram: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many wages councils, such as the retail trade wages council, which covers the largest number of employees, decreed that a school leaver is automatically worth 60 per cent. of the weekly wages of a fully fledged experienced adult? Does he agree that that high starting percentage rate mitigates against youngsters?

Mr. Alison: I share my hon. Friend's anxiety and endorse the point that he made. It is one reason why all wages councils have had their attention drawn especially to the vulnerability of young people to statutory wage rates that effectively exclude them from any job opportunities.

Mr. Radice: Is the Minister aware that most wages councils award a minimum for youths of between only £30 and £40 a week, that during the past two years, when youth unemployment has increased, the differential between youth and adult wages has widened, and that in 1980 a working paper from his Department dismissed the importance of the role of wages in youth unemployment? Is there any hard evidence of the connection between youth wages and youth unemployment?

Mr. Alison: Common sense would decree that there is such a connection. The hon. Gentleman should consider the margin between rates for those under 18 and adult rates in the contract cleaning and laundry industries. The differential is only 10 per cent. Young people are paid about 90 per cent. of the adult rates. He should also realise that employers will not take on inexperienced school leavers aged 16 or 17 at wages close to the adult rate. We are convinced that the young workers scheme, which pays a premium to employers who take on young people at under £40 a week, will have a real and positive effect in giving job opportunities to youngsters.

OECD Employment Levels

Mr. Dover: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when next he expects to discuss employment levels in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries with European Economic Community Ministers.

Mr. Tebbitt: I shall be discussing current employment issues with my European Community colleagues and other OECD Labour and Social Affairs Ministers at a meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Manpower and Social Affairs Committee on Thursday and Friday of this week.

Mr. Dover: At that meeting, will my right hon. Friend point out how the level and rate of increase of unemployment in the United Kingdom compare favourably with other countries?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The rate of increase in many other countries, including

Germany, the United States of America and Sweden, is now rising very much more quickly than here, as those countries hit the problems that we are already resolving.

Mr. Varley: Why does the Secretary of State not give the true facts about United Kingdom unemployment compared with other leading OECD countries? For example, during the two and a half years or more that the Government have been in office, has not unemployment in the United Kingdom risen much more quickly and sharply than in any other leading industrial country? Is that not because the Government, in every economic and industrial decision that they have taken during the past two and a half years, have attacked jobs and investment?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman must not confuse shouting and being aggressive with making a sensible point. If he considers the figures for the last three months on the previous three months, he will find that the rate has increased more quickly in Germany, the United States of America, Sweden, Canada, Austria and Ireland, to name but a few. Those countries are now running into some of the problems with which we have been dealing for some time, some of which we inherited from the Labour Government.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Secretary of State point out to those at the meeting on Thursday that the one person who kidded the British public that once we entered the Common Market everything would be lovely and the land would flow with milk and honey, and the only person who has benefited and done well from the Common Market, is the so-called leader in anticipation who will fight the Glasgow, Hillhead by-election—Mr. Roy Jenkins?

Mr. Tebbit: I shall not mention that in Brussels, because very few Hillhead electors will be there to listen to me. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman said has been heard in Hillhead. I do not share his view that no one except Mr. Jenkins benefited from our entry into the Common Market, but I certainly noticed that he did.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why the unemployment figures in Germany are changing is that, until now, the position was disguised by the fact that the Germans returned their guest workers? Therefore, only now is the true unemployment position beginning to emerge.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend has made a good point. Perhaps another reason is that our export performance is extremely good and we are taking back orders which formerly were won by the Germans.

Wages Councils

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received representations about the level of awards that may be decided by the wages councils.

Mr. Alison: Representations about wages councils proposals are usually made direct to the wages councils, which must consider them before confirming or amending proposals. I have recently received a number of letters from hon. Members and employers about proposals issued by the retail councils.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problems that the wages councils are creating for the retail industry and the distributive trades generally? Does he


agree that it is possible for people to price themselves out of work and that the wages councils are effectively doing that now?

Mr. Alison: I have received a deputation from the British Multiple Retailers Association, whose representatives forcefully made the same point as my hon. Friend has made. I take fully the point that wages councils are capable of pricing youngsters and adult workers out of jobs, and I have made the point to them in written submissions.

Mr. Park: Does the Minister agree that there is some confusion both in his mind and in that of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey)? Surely the job of the wages councils is to evaluate what a job is worth in a certain area, not to assess whether the businesses in that area are being run properly.

Mr. Alison: The wages councils have a statutory and independent role and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they incorporate representatives of both the trade unions and the employers. A neutral third party also acts as arbitrator. They consider all those factors, but it is fair and reasonable for many people who are affected by their decisions to make representations on the proposals. Representations and submissions are coming thicker and faster in protest at recent proposals than we have known for many years.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the Minister not fall into the trap of assuming that wages councils protect only employees? They can protect employers as well inasmuch as they ensure that employers are required to pay a fair wage for a job and thereby compete with each other on fair terms. The Minister should keep sight of that point when considering wages councils.

Mr. Alison: Employers have as much opportunity as employees in the wages councils for evaluating, in discussion under neutral chairmanship, where their real interests lie. I hope that I have not fallen into any trap in suggesting that invariably one side or the other is led astray or fails to get a fair deal out of the council's fund. Those concerned are human and fallible. For this reason, it is necessary for a council to circulate widely the proposals that it is thinking of incorporating and finally enacting. It is in the context of these proposals that we have recently received a large volume of protest.

Industrial Tribunals

Mr. Michael Spicer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the workings of the industrial tribunal system.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): In general, yes.

Mr. Spicer: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the body of precedent and law building up around the industrial tribunal system is becoming so complicated and cumbersome that there is a real danger that the interests of the layman, for whom the whole system was started, are being threatened?

Mr. Waddington: Obviously this is a danger, and we want to try to avoid legal complications. However, two-thirds of all the applications brought are settled or withdrawn. Only the complicated cases go to tribunals. It is inevitable, if there is a statute to be applied, that there will be legal refinements.

Mr. Ron Brown: Would it be possible for these tribunals to cover employers who normally operate within the context of the wages councils, because last year in Scotland almost 1,000 such employers did not pay the statutory wages? In effect, they were breaking the law, but not one of them was prosecuted. Is that not a disgrace? Apparently one can frighten the Queen's horse and get five years in gaol, but it is all right to rob the working class.

Mr. Waddington: Inspectors ensure that the Act is enforced. Industrial tribunals have more than enough to do already. We should not give them the additional job of enforcing wages councils orders.

Youth Opportunities Programme

Mr. Squire: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the skill content of the present youth opportunities programme.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am satisfied that the training in basic skills in the youth opportunities programme is constantly improving. In 1982–83 the programme will contain around 100,000 new comprehensive training places as a bridge towards the youth training scheme that starts in 1983.

Mr. Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the key elements in the health of an economy is the degree of training or skill that school leavers are able to acquire? In that connection will lie undertake to ensure that the highest degree of skill or training is available under the recently announced youth training scheme?

Mr. Morrison: The answer to both questions is "Yes".

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that there are some good employers who, at the end of the journey, give youth opportunities programme workers the chance to carry on? Is he also aware that there are many bad employers who must be monitored and given certain guidelines, because in many instances our young people are being exploited? That was not the intention of the scheme that was introduced by the Labour Government.

Mr. Morrison: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the MSC monitors all the schemes and all the sponsors of those schemes. In some cases, they are rejected.

Mr. McNally: Is the Minister sattisfied that the monitoring is adequate? There is too much evidence for it to be anecdotal of young people going into jobs as skivvies and leaving feeling bitter and cynical. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the scheme is properly monitored? If employers are using the scheme for cheap labour, will he also ensure that they take no further part in it?

Mr. Morrison: I am satisfied that the scheme is monitored properly and that, wherever there is a complaint, the MSC investigates.

Mr. Watson: In view of the attention frequently drawn by Labour Members to the proposed reduction in the weekly allowance from £23·50 to £15 per week, will my hon. Friend make clear whether, under the new scheme, the total sum available per young person, including the crucial training element, will be going up or down?

Mr. Morrison: The amount spent on the average week's course is about £38, including the allowance. The


amount that will be spent on the youth training scheme per trainee per week is £53 for 16-year-olds, going up to £63 for 17-year-olds. As my hon. Friend said, there is a substantial increase in the amount being spent per trainee.

Midland Region

Mrs. Faith: asked the Secretary of ,State for Employment if he will make a statement on employment prospects in the Midland region as assessed by the Manpower Services Commission's paper "Labour Market Trends, Midland Region, 1982–84".

Mr. Alison: This paper concludes that there will be a very gradual climb out of the recession throughout 1982 and into 1983 and it confirms that in the Midlands region, as in the rest of the country, there are already some signs of improvement. If British industry continues to succeed in its efforts to improve competitiveness, which is the only way to create the new and secure jobs we all seek, I have no doubt that the Midlands region will share in future prosperity as fully as it has in the past.

Mrs. Faith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. When reading the paper, did he notice that unemployment in Derbyshire, although still too high, was appreciably lower than in the rest of the region? Does he agree that that is because of good labour relations and diversification and, more particularly, because the number of small businesses is appreciably higher than in the rest of the country? If so, will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give further assistance to entrepreneurs of small businesses next week in his Budget?

Mr. Alison: The relatively happy position to which my hon. Friend refers is evident. I take careful note of the point that she made. Her assiduous attention to her duties in her constituency is an important example that should be emulated.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in Derbyshire the latest figures show that, as a result of the Tory Government's policies, bankruptcies are on the increase, as is unemployment? Will he also bear in mind that, as a result of these policies, Richard O'Brien, the previous head of the MSC, recently referred in another paper to the fact that it now costs the Exchequer £12½ billion to finance the dole queue. I suppose that because he had the temerity to say that, he got the sack.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) exposes himself to the charge of drawing aside the veil of reality for the causes of unemployment. That lies squarely with the Labour Government, who, between 1975 and 1980, allowed unit labour costs in manufacturing industry to double in Britain while in Japan they did not go up, in Germany they went up by one-fifth, in the United States by only a third and by a half in Canada. That is the reason for our present high unemployment.

Training

Mr. Needham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that sufficient training schemes will be available under the new training initiative to guarantee a place for all applicants.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The new youth training scheme includes a guaranteed offer of a training place to all

unemployed school leavers who leave school at the minimum age. We are working towards this goal now, and we will need the wholehearted co-operation of all concerned to reach it.

Mr. Needham: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the comments of Opposition Members—particularly the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams), who called this scheme cheap and cosmetic, while doing nothing herself when she was able to get a scheme on to the statute book—will or could undermine the work of the Manpower Services Commission, which is desperately trying to get this worthwhile and positive scheme off the ground?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) had ample opportunity to bring in a scheme such as this, but apparently did not desire to do so. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is neither constructive nor helpful for one or two hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to niggle about a scheme that is costing a fantastic amount of money and that will serve school leavers extremely well.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that one of the rules says that refusal of a reasonable offer disqualifies an applicant from benefit? Who decides what a reasonable offer is, and what is a reasonable offer?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the goal is to provide for every school leaver who does not have a job an opportunity of a place on a scheme. We want to make sure that round pegs fit into round holes and square pegs into square holes. I should have thought that

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend ensure that, under the training initiative, local education authorities are used to the maximum, in co-operation with the Manpower Services Commission, because they often have facilities that could be made available within the new initiative, and it is important to maximise those facilities?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with what my hon. Friend says, that local education authorities have facilities and resources that the new training initiative and the new training scheme can use. To the best of my knowledge, the co-operation and collaboration between the Manpower Services Commission and the education authorities is progressing well.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is it not clear that the scrapping of most of the statutory industrial training boards has placed industrial training in many industries under threat of imminent and total collapse? Is it not obvious that the voluntary system that the Government propose is desperately short of volunteers and that Manpower Services Commission is near despair over the consequences of the Government's policies? Should not the Government think again about this lunatic idea?

Mr. Morrison: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is "No", "No", "No". I am sure that he would agree that industrial training boards per se did not train anybody. They oversaw training that was done in the industries, and I have great confidence that the voluntary organisations will do that, too.

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the scheme announced for apprentice training by the electical contractors.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I welcome the electrical contracting industry's proposals for a new training scheme. They are wholly consistent with the Government's new training initiative.

Mr. Renton: Bearing in mind that Germany has four times as many apprentices every year as we have in Britain, can my hon. Friend at this stage give us an idea of the increase in numbers, quality and standards of British apprentices if more industries follow the example of the electrical contractors? What is the reaction of the Construction Industry Training Board to the electrical contractors going it on their own?

Mr. Morrison: In answer to my hon. Friend's second question, the Construction Industry Training Board has tbaken a flexible line, and the proposals by the electrical contracting industry will be put forward within the construction industry training board. As for my hon. Friend's first question concerning my estimate of the increase in the number of apprentices, at this stage it is rather difficult to give him that information.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Minister aware of the failure of private building contractors, with a handful of honourable exceptions, to employ and train apprentices? Is he aware that throughout the country, including Manchester and Salford, the majority of places in technical colleges for these apprenticeships are going to direct labour organisations? Will he therefore encourage DLOs, rather than decimate them, as he is doing at present?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that there are some cutbacks in apprenticeship training, but I am also aware that the Manpower Services Commission, on behalf of the Government, is subsidising 35,000 first-year apprentices at a cost of £50 million, where it is necessary. That applies to the construction industry as well as to other industries.

Unfair Dismissals

Mr. Leighton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish median figures for the compensation for unfair dismissals made by industrial tribunals for the last 12 months.

Mr. Waddington: Figures for the median award of compensation for 1981 will be published as soon as they are available, which is expected to be in five or six months' time. The median award for 1980 was £590.

Mr. Leighton: Does the Minister accept that people's lives revolve around their jobs, and that it is a traumatic experience to lose one's job, whatever the reason? We are told in the Minister's answer that the median award granted by tribunals for people unfairly dismissed was under £600. Can the Minister explain why, in legislation that he is seeking to railroad through the House, for a single cause—allegedly leaving a trade union—he proposes to award sums of £20,000 to £30,000? What is the motive for doing that?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman surely knows that, for unlawful dismissal for trade union activity, there is already a higher award of compensation than for other

forms of unfair dismissal. It is absolutely right that there should be a higher award for unfair dismissal in a closed shop, because one of the evils of the closed shop is that a man could be banned from his trade for the rest of his natural life.

Mr. Radice: How can the Minister justify the difference between the median figure that he has just give n the House, of under £600, with a normal minimum, according to the Secretary of State, of £12,000 for the small number who are dismissed in closed shops? Is not that disparity grossly unfair and blatantly anti-union?

Mr. Waddington: It is proper that people who lose their jobs in a closed shop should get generous compensation. It is also essential to have a deterrent to dissuade employers, such as Walsall and Sandwell councils, from behaving in the disgraceful way that they recently did.

Mr. Renton: Will my hon. and learned Friend explain to the House why Opposition Members have already spent 10 hours in Standing Committee arguing that compensation should not be paid to people who lost their jobs because of the closed shop in the 1970s, instead of getting on to the other clauses of the Employment Bill, which they say concern them so deeply?

Mr. Waddington: It beats me. I keep reminding Opposition Members that there would not have been any need for clause 1 of the Bill if the Labour Government, between 1974 and 1979, had behaved in a civilised fashion.

Work Experience

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of entrants to work experience schemes under the youth opportunities programme found permanent employment after leaving the schemes, in each of the last three years.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Survey evidence suggests that of those young people leaving work experience schemes in 1981, about 30 per cent. found a job immediately, compared with 50 per cent. in 1980 and 66 per cent. in 1979.

Mr. Hamilton: Do not the figures confirm that the prospect of getting a permanent job, after whatever training scheme the Government seek to introduce, is getting worse and worse, so long as present economic policies continue? Does that not confirm also that it is more important for the Government to change their policies than to introduce schemes the effect of which is simply to cook unemployment statistics?

Mr. Morrison: Do I understand from that that the hon Gentleman is against the youth opportunities programme? I hope not. As he knows very well, Governments per se do not create jobs. Jobs come from profitable and competitive industrial and commercial enterprises. That is what we are achieving, and a lot of new jobs are coming on stream in that respect.

Mr. Madel: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the training content of the work experience schemes has considerably improved during the past two years? Will his Department monitor progress of the new 12-month pilot


schemes that the Manpower Services Commission is introducing this year to help young people to obtain improved training?

Mr. Morrison: I can confirm that the training content has gradually improved over a period of years. Yes, we shall monitor the one-year training schemes that he mentioned. Finally, as my hon. Friend is aware, the youth training scheme that comes on stream in September 1983 will have a significant increased training content.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current percentage levels of unemployment in the United Kingdom, the European Economic Community, Norway, Sweden and Austria, respectively.

Mr. Tebbit: Exactly comparable figures are not available—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".]—they very seldom are—but in December 1981, the latest month for which information is available for all the countries, the United Kingdom rate, on a partly standardised basis, was 11·3 per cent. as compared with 9·0 per cent. for the European Community as a whole. In Norway the national rate was 1·9 per cent., for Sweden 2·9 per cent. and for Austria 4·1 per cent.

Mr. Taylor: As the United Kingdom in the 1950s and 1960s had rates of unemployment which were similar to those in Austria, Norway and Sweden, is my right hon. Friend prepared to mount a special study to find out why those smaller countries are apparently more successful in tackling unemployment, particularly when they have been deprived of the dramatic benefits of EEC membership?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is, perhaps, on to an interesting point when he says that we should think about the causes of those matters. I am puzzled that the Swedes are so guilt-ridden about not being members of the Community that they commit suicide at twice the rate of the British—or perhaps it is because unemployment in Sweden rose by nearly a half in the second half of last year. I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is rash to draw such a conclusion from the statistics that he uses.

Mr. Foster: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that young people in the North of England are so guilt-ridden at not having a job that they are committing suicide? Will he explain why Britain, which has one-fifth of the European Community's population, has one-third of European.unemployment? Does not that have something to do with the fact that the fiscal and monetary stance of the Government has been three times as restrictive as that of any other European Government?

Mr. Tebbit: No, Sir, not at all. The hon. Gentleman would do better to examine what happens in, for example, Germany, in relation to labour law, and what has been happening to the unit labour costs there. He should also reflect on the fact that the fiscal and monetary stance of this country during the period when the disaster was being prepared for British industry was the fiscal and monetary stance of the party of which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) is a member. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members cannot listen for a moment, they would be advised to learn to do so. I repeat that the damage that was done to the economy when money was being

poured into it at an unparalleled rate until the IMF had to take over control is largely responsible for our difficulties today.

Textile and Clothing Workers

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many textile and clothing workers have been made redundant in the last six months for which figures are available, nationally, in the North-West region, and in the Macclesfield and Congleton travel-to-work areas.

Mr. Waddington: The provisional number of redundancies reported to the Manpower Services Commission as due to occur in the textile and clothing industry in Great Britain between August 1981 and January 1982 inclusive was 13,453. The figures for the North-West, Macclesfield and Congleton were 3,313, 37 and nil respectively. These figures are not comprehensive; they do not, for instance, include redundancies affecting fewer than 10 employees.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the textile and clothing industry is the second largest employer of labour in this country? If the Government had allocated even a tiny percentage of their advice and assistance—financial and otherwise—to that dynamic industry, the dramatic unemployment that it has experienced in the last three years would not have taken place. Will he advise us whether we shall take action along the lines of Belgium and other European countries to help that vital industry?

Mr. Waddington: I fully appreciate the importance of the textile and clothing industry. Provided that we continue with a tough policy on imports, the textile industry, like others, will benefit from the revival in the economy for which we are working. The European Commission has sole competence in the application of the competition rules of the Treaty. We have argued strongly to the Commission that aids for textiles and clothing should be reduced and made more transparent, to ensure fair competition.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the Minister aware that many of the redundancies to which he referred in his answer were caused not by a slimming down in the industry but by the closure of textile mills? Is he further aware that it will be necessary to attract new industry to the areas where those closures have taken place? As many of those closures have been in my constituency, will the Minister explain why the Government are taking away its development area status this year?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman knows that I, too, come from a textile area. Throughout my life, I have been concerned with its fortunes. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the question of development area status is one for the Department of Industry. He would not expect me to reply to that question now, but what he has said will be noted.

Mr. Woolmer: Is the Minister aware that over the last 10 years textile and clothing areas have lost 350,000 jobs and that towns such as Batley in my constituency have an unemployment rate among men and youths of about 30 per cent.? Is it not time that the Government acted


constructively in textile and clothing areas, in the same way as action was taken to deal with the steel and coal industries?

Mr. Waddington: I fully appreciate the problems of the industry. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not as if the textile industry had recently encountered difficulties. It has encountered difficulties for years and years. Provided that we adopt a tough policy on imports, the textile industry will benefit, as will others, from our economic policies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Saudi Arabian Minister of Planning. in addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to tell the people that all law-abiding citizens of our nation have the right to travel where they want and when they want and that that should apply whether they be holidaymakers, business men or sportsmen, including cricketers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that we should seek to help a country that is friendly to the West, and to help the Prime Minister of that country, who is carrying through a progressive programme, rather than hand over Southern Africa to our enemies?

The Prime Minister: Citizens of this country are free to travel, as far as we are concerned. No restrictions are placed upon them.

Mr. Foot: Has the right hon. Lady had the chance to study carefully early-day motion 289, to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) subscribed? Does she not think that that early-day motion is deeply humiliating to the House of Commons? The early-day motion deals with the cricketers who have gone to South Africa.
Will the Prime Minister take early steps to show how strongly she disapproves of all the views expressed in that early-day motion? Will she make it clear that the Government are determined to carry out the Gleneagles agreement and to uphold the Test and County Cricket Board in carrying out its proper functions? Will she make it clear that as a Government and as a country we entirely repudiate the sentiments expressed by about 30 of her followers in that early-day motion?

The Prime Minister: We are signatories to the Gleneagles agreement. We reaffirmed it and we try to uphold its terms. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, our powers are limited to persuasion. The Test and County Cricket Board did everything that it could with regard to the cricketers who have gone to play in South Africa. However, it did not know when the visit was going to take place. In so far as it did know, it attempted to persuade people not to go. We try to uphold the Gleneagles

agreement. That has to be done by persuasion. In the end the decision is up to each of the persons concerned, because they are in a free country.

Mr. Winnick: What is the right hon. Lady's view?

The Prime Minister: There are no legal restrictions in a free country on travel.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady recognise that this is not only a question of persuasion, although that, of course, enters into it. It is also open to her—indeed, it is her duty to the House and to the country—to condemn early-day motion 289, which is deeply offensive to human rights? Have the right hon. Lady and her Government fully considered the threat to the Commonwealth Games? If the condemnation is not sufficiently strong, the games might be threatened. I am sure that the right hon. Lady does not wish to see that situation arise. Will she not use her authority to try to ensure that the Commonwealth Games are maintained and that this country plays its proper part in the games?

The Prime Minister: We believe in the Gleneagles agreement. We shall do our best to uphold it. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport has seen the Test and County Cricket Board. We do not, however, have the power to prevent our sportsmen and women from visiting South Africa or anywhere else. If we did, we would no longer be a free country. The Gleneagles agreement recognises that we can act only by persuasion. We have tried to do just that.

Mr. David Steel: In our free country, is it not the duty of the Head of the elected Government of what is also a Commonwealth country to make clear her own condemnation of what has happened?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Minister responsibile for sport, on my behalf, has made the views of the Government perfectly clear—

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Lady should say it.

The Prime Minister: His remarks are already on the record. He has seen the Test and County Cricket Board. In the end, our capacity to act is limited to persuasion.

Q2. Mr. John Townend: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 2 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour-controlled Humberside county council is levying a rate 61 per cent. higher than that levied by the Conservative council last year? Will my right hon. Friend accept that, in an area of high unemployment, this will reduce job opportunities? Will the Government consider taking further action to protect hard-pressed industry and working people from the ravages of such Marxist councils?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware that Humberside has announced that it will increase its precept by 61 per cent. This is the highest increase of any of the shire counties. It comes, of course, from a Labour council. Many people who have been transferred to Humberside from Lincolnshire wish to goodness that they were still in Lincolnshire. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that local rates are the biggest tax paid by industry and that


higher rates cost jobs. My hon. Friend knows that a Bill is before the House to prevent supplementary rates—that council also had a supplementary rate—and that there is a Green Paper on the restructuring and the future of the rating system. How far we can advance will depend upon the reaching of a conclusion on the best way to go about the matter.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Prime Minister say why the Government are proposing to introduce a new version of the retail price index for the purposes of uprating the poorest beneficiaries on supplementary benefit, using a formula which, if applied this year, will deprive the unemployed and pensioners on supplementary benefit and supplementary pensions of £90 million?

The Prime Minister: The present Act is related to the retail prices index as it is now.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: While agreeing with my right hon. Friend's first answer on the question relating to sport in South Africa, may I ask her to confirm that those cricketers who decided not to go were making a more significant gesture in terms of freedom for people in South Africa, who are unable in many cases to move around in their own country or to travel abroad?

The Prime Minister: I know that some cricketers were persuaded not to go by the action of the Test and County Cricket Board. I believe that they are probably making their stand on apartheid in South Africa.

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dean: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's admission in the House last Thursday that had the shares of Amersham International been disposed of by tender a much higher price could have been realised, will she, as a matter of urgency, consult her right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with a view to tabling the necessary manuscript motion today, which would allow the notice of objection by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to be debated and voted upon separately today, to give the House the chance to express its view on this very sordid business?

The Prime Minister: What can be voted upon separately is a matter not for me but for the Chair, and possibly for the Leader of the House. It is certainly not a matter for me. With regard to Amersham International, I did not necessarily say that the tender would have produced a higher price in any way. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that before the event occurred a number of commentaries appeared, one of which—I refer to the Investors Chronicle—stated that the share was "a shade ambitiously priced."
Bearinng in mind that the price of most industrial shares is 10·6 times historic earnings and for companies in the health and household sector 13·8 times historic earnings, a price of nearly 19 times forecast earnings would appear to have been about right.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how eagerly many of my constituents in Southampton are looking forward to the privatisation of the British Transport Docks Board? We.have suffered almost 12 months of disputes. We hope that the privatisation will produce stronger

management with better organisational ability and that this will mean more prosperity for the 19 ports under the British Transport Docks Board.

The Prime Minister: I am glad that my hon. Friend takes that view. I am sure that the result will be a better bargain and a more efficient operation and that it will also be better for the consumer.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Prime Minister aware that the widows of coal miners have been issued with notices by the Inland Revenue informing them that the pensions of their late husbands are now to be taxed? What does she intend to do about it?

The Prime Minister: I rather think that we have a Budget in the offing. I ask the hon. Gentleman to contain his impatience.

Sir Hector Monro: Reverting to an earlier question, does my right hon. Friend agree that, regardless of the circumstances, no individual sport will flourish in this country unless there is loyalty and trust between the competitors and players and their governing bodies? Is it not a sad day when money is more important than the game?

The Prime Minister: The Test and County Cricket Board has done its best loyally to uphold the Gleneagles agreement and has given advice. In the end, of course, while many of us may agree with my hon. Friend, in a free country it is up to the persons concerned freely to make their decisions.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 2 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that when my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) raises the issue of widows of coal miners being taxed on miners' pensions of about £6 out of a net income of less than £37 a week, the reason is that, in last year's Budget, she and the rest of her gang marched into the Lobby to ensure that personal allowances were not raised in line with inflation? Does this not show that the Government are concerned with lining the pockets of their supporters, by the sale of Amersham shares, to the tune of £25 million, while making people receiving less than £37 pay taxation? Has she not a duty in the next Budget to repair that damage?

The Prime Minister: Taxation is levied not on a particular pension but on total income, in accordance with personal allowances rules, which are fixed by each Finance Act. It is usually the subject of the Budget each year. It would be much easier to reduce direct tax if people thought more of reducing direct public expenditure.

Mr. Garel-Jones: In the course of her busy day, has my right hon. Friend heard rumours that pension fund managers, acting on behalf of mineworkers and railwaymen, were substantial subscribers to Amersham International shares? If that rumour is correct, will she congratulate those pension fund managers on exercising their skill and expertise on behalf of hundreds of thousands of working people?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the rumour is true, but pension fund managers have a duty to


make the best investment for their beneficiaries. If they did that, they presumably did it because they thought that it was a good investment in the long run.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As it is rumoured that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Howell), who speaks on behalf of the Opposition for sport—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every instinct in me tells me that it is wiser to ask the hon. Gentleman to remain seated.

Lorry Traffic (Regulations)

Mr. John Lee: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for regulating lorry traffic.
Road transport is vital to twentieth century industry, and it is absurd to pretend that we can do without the lorry. However, we are all concerned about the damage which heavy lorries can do when they are allowed to use roads which were never designed to take them. We may not love the lorry but we must learn to live with it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has told the House about the various measures he is taking to tackle the environmental damage which is caused by lorries. Fie has substantially increased the bypass programme and is providing new advice to local authorities on how to use their powers to ban lorries from unsuitable roads. That is where my Bill, although modest, has an important part to play.
Many hon. Members will know that county councils have wide powers under the Road Traffics Regulation Act 1967 to control the movement of heavy lorries in their areas for amenity and other purposes. Those powers were strengthened by the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act 1973 which is often known al the Dykes Act after its sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). Enormous environmental benefit has resulted from the 850 or so orders made under those Acts but there is scope for more.
One effect of the Dykes Act was the introduction of a definition of heavy commercial vehicle into the 1967 Act. In 1973 it was still fairly common in legislation to refer to vehicles in terms of their unladen weight in imperial units. The present definition relates to vehicles exceeding 3 tons unladen weight. Recent changes in the transport industry mean that lorries now tend to be classified by their maximum gross weight—the weight of a lorry carrying its maximum permitted load. That weight must be shown on a plate in the cab of a heavy lorry. That maximum gross weight is sometimes known as the plated weight and it facilitates the checking of overweight vehicles.
Despite those trends, the present definition of heavy commercial vehicle in the 1967 Act continued to be used extensively by county councils in making traffic regulation orders until August last year. The new traffic signs regulations came into force then and prohibited the use of road signs showing restrictions in unladen weight. In accordance with an EEC directive, new signs also had to be metric, although provisions for existing signs to remain until the end of 1989 has been made.
The House will appreciate that all road signs must correspond to a road traffic regulation order if they are to be effective and enforceable. The present incompatibility is causing problems for county councils which must devise their own definitions of the orders. That cumbersome arrangement is inhibiting and the public must put up with

noise, vibration and pollution for far longer than is necessary. I understand that the Department of Transport consulted interested organisations last year under the provisions of the draft amending regulations. Apparently, there are legal obstacles to proceeding in this way and thus a change requires primary legislation.
It is most undesirable that difficulties should be placed in the way of county councils that wish to observe or improve amenities in their area by introducing lorry controls. It is essential that county councils be given every assistance to use their powers to the full. This Bill is a positive way to help ensure that the powers which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East was instrumental in producing almost a decade ago continue to be used to good effect. The Bill is intended to serve that general purpose. It will simply amend the definition of heavy commercial vehicle in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 and bring it into line with the terminology now used for road signs, vehicle and driver licensing and other matters relating to heavy lorries.
The new definition would apply to vehicles exceeding 7·5 tonnes maximum gross weight. That figure is supported by the local authority associations and the road haulage industry. It also has the advantage of being the threshold for HGV licences so that a driver will know whether the vehicle he is driving contravenes a restriction. In addition, the requirement for rear chevrons has been changed to that figure recently so that vehicles exceeding 7·5 tonnes should be easy to identify.
We should do all that we can to help the police in their difficult task of enforcing these regulations. I am confident that this measure will be welcomed generally, by county councils, police, industrialists, road hauliers and, most important of all, thousands of ordinary people throughout the country who will benefit if lorries are banned from the streets in which people live and shop.
I am not out to knock lorries. The British lorry manufacturing industry needs all the encouragement it can get at the moment. No-one representing a regional constituency with so much manufacturing industry, as do I, would wish in any way to make national distribution more difficult. However, it is a question of balance and we need regulations and controls. I therefore trust that the House will give its full support to the introduction of this short Bill for the purpose that I have outlined.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Lee, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Chris Patten, Mr. Keith Wickenden, Mr. Christopher Murphy, Mr. John Major, Mr. Richard Needham, Mr. Gerry Neale, Mr. Barry Sheerman and Mr. Ken Eastham.

LORRY TRAFFIC (REGULATIONS)

Mr. John Lee accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for regulating lorry traffic: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Orders of the Day — Gas Price Increases

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the decision of Her Majesty's Government to increase domestic gas prices by 22 per cent. in 1982 and demands that this policy be not implemented.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Rees: I shall try to be brief, as I believe that two Front Bench spokesmen would be inappropriate in a three-hour debate.
Rarely has more concern been expressed than on this act of Government policy. The Government have decided to increase gas prices by 22 per cent.—12 per cent. for inflation and 10 per cent. on a regular basis. The average increases in 1980 were 17 per cent. and 10 per cent., and in 1981, 15 per cent. and 10 per cent. This follows the decision of the Government—not the British Gas Corporation—in 1980 to increase gas prices by 10 per cent. more than inflation as a general act of policy. As a result of Government policy, gas prices have increased by about 100 per cent. since 1979.
All of this has occurred not because of a decision by the Gas Corporation but as a result of a firm decision by the Cabinet—and this from a Government led by a Prime Minister who has the nerve to go round the country complaining that it is the nationalised industries which put up prices. The Government have put up gas prices. It is not market forces or Gas Corporation decisions, but Government policy. The Government constantly denigrate the nationalised industries and the Gas Corporation. This is a richly successful, integrated industry and a world leader in research looking to the future. The job that it has carried out in the past 20 years with high-speed gas and North Sea gas and the pipe system throughout the country has been truly remarkable.
In exactly the same way, it was the Government who imposed a levy on the Gas Corporation, thus milking it of £1·25 billion over three years. The Government see the Gas Corporation not just as a convenient Aunt Sally in political speeches but as a means of raising taxation outwith the corporation's statutory responsibility to supply gas. A Conservative Central Office handout of 27 February had the nerve to say:
Domestic consumers benefited at the expense of industrial consumers".
I shall return to that.
They were benefiting also at the expense of the taxpayer".
It is the taxpayer, in the form of the British Gas Corporation, who has to pay a levy of £1·25 billion to the Exchequer. It is Government policy to put up gas prices, even without these instructions on domestic gas prices. The result of the provisions relating to gas in the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill now in Standing Committee will be to raise prices. We heard this morning in that Committee

that Sir Ernest Woodroofe, who had been a part-time member of the British Gas Corporation for nine years, had written:
As a staunch Conservative, having voted solidly for the Party all my life and having rejoiced at the success at the last election … I see nothing in this Bill which will reduce the price of gas to the consumer and since British Gas will have to compete for supplies at higher costs to the Corporation, I see the effect of the Bill as likely to make the price of gas to the consumer higher than it would have otherwise been.
That is the view of the Gas Corporation. It is clearly the Government's intention to increase prices in the gas industry. Whether it be though raising domestic gas prices through the effects of the new Bill, it is Government policy to increase the price of gas.
In the amendment, the Government seek to put a gloss on their policy for which gas does not bear examination, and to link the level of industrial prices to the policy of hiking up domestic gas prices. The sequence was in fact quite different.
Soon after the Government came to office in 1979, they reduced the external financing limit for the Gas Corporation by £190 million and insisted to the corporation that all the increases fell upon the non-domestic consumer. The increase in the fall of 1979 consisted of a 21 per cent. increase for the non-domestic consumer and an 0 per cent increase for the domestic consumer. The policy in January 1980 for 10 per cent. more than inflation for three years was to sort out the imbalance which the Government had largely caused through their own action in the first nine months of the Conservative Administration. There was no mention of helping industrial users during those months. The change followed pressure from NEDC and large industrial gas users. As a result, industrial contract renewal prices were frozen until yesterday.

Mr. Tim Eggar: rose—

Mr. Rees: Perhaps I may finish this point. Then, of course, I shall give in. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I always give in to the hon. Gentleman.
The NEDC report states:
The change since our last report has been due to: (i) the BCC measures which set a ceiling to renewal prices in Britain, so freezing prices which were already at the ceiling and restraining rates of increases for others; (ii) exchange rate movement during the year; and (iii) price increases on the continent reflecting movement in fuel oil prices and the higher prices now being charged for exports of Dutch gas.
I shall return to the third point in a moment.

Mr. Eggar: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that up to that point the Government and the British Gas Corporation were following exactly the policy on pricing promulgated by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) when he was Secretary of State for Energy?

Mr. Rees: That is a fair question. I shall return to that, as I investigated the subject carefully, and I shall spell out the policy of the Labour Government at that time.
The Government's sudden enthusiasm for industrial gas consumers is not matched by an enthusiasm to help industrial bulk electricity users, for whom arguments have been made for some time but very little has been done.
Despite the reference in the Government amendment to "helping the needy", the bald fact is that, whatever the amount of money provided, fewer people will be helped than in the last year of the Labour Government, whose


scheme helped those on rent and rate rebate schemes as well as those on supplementary benefit. The Conservatives were driven to help some of those on low incomes by the bad winter, not as an offset to the policy of annual gas hikes about which we are complaining today. If it was an offset, they certainly took a long time about it, as that policy was implemented in January 1980. The Government were driven to act. They should listen to the consumer on energy pricing policy. A document that I received recently from the North-Eastern gas consumers'F council in Eastgate, Leeds states that at a recent meeting of the council it repeated its view that
all the increases should be vigorously opposed
and that
price increases should be based only on the financial needs of the Industry. Whilst being well aware of the Government's policy imposed on British Gas that prices should rise 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation over three years … they felt that the British Gas Corporation had not told them any reason why they needed the extra money.
Of course, the British Gas Corporation does not need the extra money. It is a Government decision and a method of taxation. The Government are using the British Gas Corporation to collect a poll tax, or at least to levy a tax on the basis of the amount of energy used by the British people. The Government's energy policy is incoherent. They have drifted in the wind of their own belief in free market forces, always slow to respond to the arguments of the NEDC or the large industrial users. They are motivated by a positive dislike of nationalised industry. The gas industry is successful in anybody's language. In addition the Government policy on depletion is not clean.
The fall in the price of oil—which might well drop by another $5 a barrel—is welcome because of its effect throughout the economy. We shall see whether it is welcome to the Chancellor. Surely, as a result, the price of industrial gas will fall because normally there is a straight link between the price of oil and the price of industrial gas. No one could possibly know the precise figure, but that change will surely force the Government to look again at overall prices.
The Secretary of State for Energy has far more responsibility than a shadow spokesman. However, I have been at it slightly longer than him. It strikes me as remarkable that, despite the country having all the coal, gas and oil that it needs, we make a hash of it. In contrast Canada uses its prolific supplies of energy for the benefit of its domestic and industrial consumers. We should do exactly the same.

Mr. Peter Rost: The right hon. Gentleman talks about protecting the consumer. Does he not accept that industrial and commercial consumers have been penalised, particularly by the Labour Government's pricing policy, which held down the domestic price at the expense of the industrial consumer? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many jobs are being lost in Britain as a result of high gas prices to the industrial sector?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman said that in Committee this morning. He is wrong. According to the NEDC report, we are not at a disadvantage as far as gas prices are concerned.

Mr. John Hannam: Not now.

Mr. Rees: Of course we are not now. That is what I read out. The Government experienced pressures last year, but the assertion of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) is wrong.
It is always pleasant to look at what a party said at the last election. In 1979, on the basis of the Labour Government's policy, the Labour Party said:
As well as being available in large supplies, gas is also competitively priced. Some have argued that it has an unfair advantage as a source of domestic heating over electricity, and that its price should be raised to bring it more into line with that of electricity. However, gas is only relatively cheap because it has been possible to develop the gas in the southern basin of the North Sea cheaply, and because the industry has cut its workforce by over 20 per cent. in ten years. We believe that relatively cheap gas encourages its use in the premium markets—domestic and commercial—for which it is best suited. To increase its price, so that domestic consumers would want to switch to electricity, would, not be in the interests of the industry, and would in any case, cause unnecessary hardship to many gas consumers who rely on it as an inexpensive form of heating and cooking. This would be contrary to Labour's objective"—
carried out in Government—
of providing adequate heat and light at a price that people can afford.
The Labour Government's policy was right and so was the policy that we put forward at the election. The Government's policy is to increase gas prices not because the British Gas Corporation wants that but because the Prime Minister and the Government want them to increase. The Government's policy is for gas prices to increase every year by the amount of inflation plus 10 per cent. That is their policy. I hope that Conservative Members will not say that everything is the fault of the British Gas Corporation, because that is not true. The British Gas Corporation is highly successful. We are debating Government policy and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the motion tonight.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House having endorsed on 29th January 1980 the Government's decision to tackle, over a three-year period, the serious under-pricing of domestic gas at industry's expense, recognises the need to complete that process this year; welcomes the relief which has been possible in consequence through lower real industrial gas prices; and supports the Government in making available more resources than ever before for helping the needy with their fuel bills.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has—as is his custom—worked himself up into something of a lather of indignation about gas prices. However, his response was hardly shared by other Labour Members. At the beginning of his speech a full five Opposition Back Benchers supported him, but by the end of his speech he had managed to increase the number to 10. That is the sum total of his achievement. I congratulate him on doubling the number of his supporters, but perhaps it shows that the motion can be described only as being by opportunism out of hypocrisy.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the fall in the price of oil might have an impact on industrial gas prices. He is right to say that the fall in the price of oil—we do not know for how long it will continue—is of net benefit to the world and to this country. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must grapple with certain budgetary problems. However, their magnitude depends not merely on the dollar price of oil, but on the


exchange rate and the sterling price of oil. The huge increase in oil prices in 1979 inflicted immense damage on the world economy and on Britain's economy and contributed greatly to inflation and particularly to the recession. The softening of prices—assuming that it will continue—can only be of benefit to the world economy, from which we can draw some comfort and hope.
I readily grant the right hon. Member for Leeds, South the fact that gas prices have caused considerable concern throughout the country, but it is important to be clear about the reason for that concern. The problem is not caused by the absolute level of the price of gas. On the contrary, gas is still the cheapest fuel available, and will continue to be even after this year's price increases. To heat a home by oil-fired central heating costs almost half as much again as heating it by gas-fired central heating. Similarly even after the recent March increase in the price of industrial gas firm gas costs 30½p per therm, compared with gas oil—even at today's oil prices—of 46p per therm. Therefore, the fall in oil prices must go much further before it has any impact on the competitive edge enjoyed by gas. It costs twice as much to cook by electricity—another competitive fuel—as by gas.
That has not always been so. During the past 10 to 15 years, while the price of all other fuels has risen very considerably in real terms, the real price of gas has fallen. I take 1968 as an example, because that was the year in which North Sea gas first took the place of the old town gas. In 1968 a typical elderly couple used between six and seven therms of gas a week to cook with and to heat their home, and that cost them 10 per cent. of their old-age pension. Even after the gas price increases of the past two years, today it costs only 4 per cent. of a married couple's pension to pay for the same amount of gas.
The price of gas today to the British home is among the lowest in the world. In France and Germany, for example, the householder has to pay from half to twice as much for his gas. Thus, it is not the absolute level of gas prices that is the problem, whether compared with other fuels, or with a decade ago, or with prices overseas. The problem is the sharp increase in the gas price that is due this year. That is what is at issue. It is right, therefore, that the House should understand why so large an increase is necessary, and, in particular, where the true responsibility for it lies—with the Labour Party.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Before the last increase in gas prices the Gas Corporation made a profit of £200 million, at a time when the Prime Minister said that too much gas was being used by domestic consumers. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about that?

Mr. Lawson: I shall come to that a little later, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman now that that profit was coming entirely from industry, from the sale of gas to industry at a much higher price. No profit came from the domestic consumer.
Let us return to Labour Members and the time when they were in Government. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South said that he was happy to have his Government's record examined. They were in no doubt about the principles on which gas prices should be based. In their White Paper of 1978, produced under the aegis of a previous Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—I do not

know where he is, but he is again absent, no doubt engaged in some extra-parliamentary activity; I believe that is the correct expression—they said:
The Government considers that gas and electricity prices should be at economic levels which reflect the cost of supply, encouraging the best use of national energy resources and avoiding subsidies from public expenditure".
Fine words, but what happened in practice?
No sooner was the ink dry on that White Paper than they decided, in a futile attempt—and, my goodness, it was futile—to court electoral popularity, to freeze the price of gas to the home for the remainder of their ill-fated term of office. As a result, by the time the present Government took office in 1979, far from there being any question of prices reflecting costs, the Gas Corporation was actually losing money, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) a moment ago, on an increasing scale on the supply of gas to the home, and all its profits were being made from its sales to industry. The price of gas to industry, far from being held down in line with domestic gas prices, rose to the point where it was costing 25 per cent. more than the price of gas to the home, despite the fact that the cost of supplying gas to industry was significantly less than that of supplying it in smaller quantities to the home.
The Labour Government's Price Commission, which was scarcely in the habit of recommending that prices should go up, reported in June 1979 that domestic gas was so seriously under-priced that its price should be increased by at least 30 per cent. Incidentally, that analysis was not challenged by the Gas Corporation.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: If it is so sensible a policy—and this was the report in June 1979—why, in September 1979, did the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member freeze domestic gas prices?

Mr. Lawson: The policy that we are debating is that which has been in existence since January 1980. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to defend his Government's policy, he will have to do a great deal better than that.
What happened when the right hon. Gentleman's party was in office is clear. The under-pricing of domestic gas had led, inevitably, to a massive surge in the demand for gas for the home far in excess of the corporation's ready ability to supply it, particularly during periods of peak winter demand. As a direct result, industry was once again being penalised, this time by having to suffer the deliberate rationing of gas and being denied the supplies that it so badly needed.
That was the cockeyed position that the Government inherited from their predecessors. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Transport, set out to put it right.

Mr. Alex Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman is introducing a very important argument. He is really arguing that not only do workers receive a wage for working, but that they receive an energy wage from industry as well. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Labour Government came into office we had about £1,000 million worth of electricity price freeze debts to pay and that, for the first time in history, the Conservative Administration had managed to make the electricity industry go into deficit?

Mr. Lawson: I do not think I would be in order if I were to allow myself to be led along the highways and


byways of electricity policy in 1974, which is what I think the hon. Gentleman was referring to. However, I am surprised that he did not understand the importance that I was attaching to the point that I made about the cost of energy generally, and gas in particular, to industry and the implications that this can have for industry's competitiveness and for jobs. I should have thought that he at least would have understood that.
My predecessor announced in January 1980 that the massive under-pricing of domestic gas would be corrected, not all at once, of course, but by a 10 per cent. increase in the real price of gas to the home in each of the three years 1980, 1981 and 1982. That was one of the most courageous decisions ever taken by a Minister. It was debated and approved by the House on 29 January 1980. What we are discussing today is the third and final instalment of that three-year correction of the follies of our predecessors.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am intervening to save the right hon. Gentleman from himself, because he said that his predecessor decided to increase the price of gas by 10 per cent. for three years. I do not want him to be accused of misleading the House. He should have added "by 10 per cent. above the current rate of inflation".

Mr. Lawson: What I said was 10 per cent. in real terms, as the hon. Gentleman will find when he reads Hansard tomorrow morning. I am sorry that he did not understand. It is confusing sometimes. I hope that he understands now.
I understand the concern about and, in some cases, the difficulty that can be caused by sharp price increases in what for many is an essential commodity. That is why the Government have introduced the most generous scheme ever to help those in need with their fuel bills. Altogether about £250 million is being spent this year to help those in low income groups—such as the elderly, the disabled, and families with young children—with special heating needs, and about 2¼ million people are benefiting from this, of whom 1½ million are pensioners. Of course, the 7½ million pensioners who do not fall into this category of special need still have their pensions fully protected against all price increases, including the price of gas.
A lot of concern has been expressed in the House about standing charges. These reflect the fixed overhead costs of making a supply of gas available to the home, and are set by the Gas Corporation without any intervention by the Government whatever, except of course the constant Government pressure on the corporation to reduce its costs. Needless to say, the standing charge is fully taken into account in assessing eligibility for the special scheme for assistance with fuel bills.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I wonder whether I might ask the right hon. Gentleman about the standing charge. I did not mention it and I wondered what he would say about it. If the Government insist that they can put up prices by 10 per cent. over the rate of inflation, is there no way in which an instruction can be given to the Gas Corporation to look at the standing charge, about which I personally receive many letters?

Mr. Lawson: As I made clear, the standing charge reflects the Gas Corporation's costs. It is a matter for the

corporation. It is not the Government who set the charge. What we are trying to do is to get the industry to look critically at its costs and reduce them. We recently announced a further intensification of the drive to make the nationalised industries more efficient and to cut their costs, by the introduction of a bigger role for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in this area, and by other means.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government give an open invitation to this nationalised industry or any other to maximise its charges there is little chance that it will then cut its costs?

Mr. Lawson: I have great respect for my hon. Friend, who now shares the same county as I do and the same local newspaper, which I am sure will faithfully reflect what he says, but I assure him that we are in no way encouraging the industry to put up its costs generally. The question that I shall come to is the balance between the domestic consumer and industry. That is crucial.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Lawson: I have given way several times. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me a little more time, I shall give way to him. I know that he is concerned about standing charges.
Whether any further assistance specifically related to standing charges is needed is, as the House has already been informed, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is conducting a review of that matter at present.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: This is not a political point. The Minister said that he had no power to instruct the Gas Corporation on the question of standing charges, because that does not come within his purview. That may well be, but he and the Department urge everyone to conserve energy. The right hon. Gentleman is running a campaign to conserve energy, but there are old people who do not receive the extra, because they are not on the supplementary benefit level, who conserve energy, and who then find that they pay more for the standing charge than they do for the gas. Ministers should not shake their heads. I have such constituents. They buy paraffin and paraffin oil lamps, conserve their gas and then find that the standing charge is more than the rest of the gas bill. Will the Minister investigate this matter?
I know of no organisation, private or public, that can, and does, draw money for nothing. Old people can go away to their relatives—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech.

Mr. Lewis: The Secretary of State has given way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was making the point that old people go away on holiday or to see their relatives and when they return after four or five weeks find that, although they have used no gas, they still have to pay the standing charge.

Mr. Lawson: The standing charge is related to the costs—and there are costs. That must be accepted, and it was accepted by the previous Government. Incidentally, it is also accepted by the gas consumers council. There is a cost in connecting a house to the gas supply, in maintaining the connection and in all the safety work


related to that. The consumers eventually receive bills, even if they are small bills. As I have said, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is conducting a review.

Mr. Spriggs: This is a very important matter. When the gas supply is connected the recipient pays in full, and after that he pays the quarterly standing charge. Why should people—especially pensioners and others on low incomes—continue to pay the quarterly standing charge?

Mr. Lawson: Perhaps I should not have given way, because many hon. Members wish to take part in this brief debate and I have already covered that point. There are many costs—billing, the maintenance of the connection, the safety force that the corporation must maintain, and so on. Everything except the cost of the gas itself is covered by the standing charge. Those costs exist. It is not simply a matter of a once-and-for-all connection cost.
The right hon. Gentleman alleged that we were putting up gas prices in order to cream off the resulting profits by means of the gas levy. There is no truth in that. When the levy was introduced a year ago, the corporation's financial target was reduced—to its present level of a 3½ per cent. return on current cost assets—specifically to take account of the levy.
The reason for the levy is simple. It has long been accepted by Governments of both parties that North Sea oil and gas are a legitimate tax base. The main instrument used—one that was devised and brought into being by the Labour Government—is petroleum revenue tax, which applies to oil and gas equally. No gas subject to PRT is also subject to the levy.
A large, albeit diminishing, proportion of the corporation's supplies comes from North Sea contracts signed before PRT came into being. It is this gas, and this gas alone, that is subject to the levy. In other words, the justification for the levy is precisely the same as the justification for PRT: the transfer of windfall or God-given profits to the nation as a whole. I repeat that none of this has had any bearing whatever on the level of gas prices, as can be readily seen, because my predecessor's policy was announced and was approved by the House in January 1980, long before the levy existed, and has remained unaltered by its coming into force a year ago.
If tax is a red herring, as it is, should we not subsidise domestic gas prices, as the Labour Government did? That is the proposition that has been put to us. If this is to come out of general taxation—and all subsidies must be paid for somehow—it is hard to imagine anything less fair.
There can be few of us, certainly on the Government Benches, who do not have in our constituencies villages where the people cannot obtain gas, even if they want to—and many of them want to very much, since it is still cheaper than other fuels—simply because the village is not on the gas grid. Roughly a quarter of all the homes in the land are in precisely that position, and the proportion is much higher in the rural areas.
What possible justice can there be in charging those who can obtain gas less than the amount that those who cannot obtain it would be only too happy to pay, and then adding insult to injury by requiring the unlucky minority to pay out of their taxes the cost of the subsidies to the lucky majority? That is what the proposition amounts to. There is no running away from it.
That is clearly out of the question, so the real issue is as follows. I have mentioned the modest rate of return that

the industry is required to earn. How is that to be secured as between the domestic consumer and the industrial consumer? We see that that is the question when we get to the bottom of it.
Under Labour, for reasons of short-term political expendiency, the supply of gas to the home was running at a loss. The entire return had to be extracted from industry, which was paying ever-higher prices to subsidise the domestic consumer. That was a fact. Had we not stepped in decisively, that imbalance would have become even worse and the burden for industry would be still greater. As it is, the increases in domestic gas prices over the past two years have only brought the corporation to the point where it just about breaks even on this side of its business.
What those increases in domestic prices have done is to enable the corporation, with some help from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his last Budget, to freeze industrial gas prices throughout 1981 and into the first quarter of this year. It is essential, on industrial and employment grounds alike, that we do whatever we can to help keep industry's energy costs competitive. The freeze on industry's gas contract renewal terms has been of crucial importance in this context, as the November NEDC task force report acknowledged.
That freeze, however, is now coming to an end An increase of 3 per cent. in industrial gas prices is now due as a prelude to further increases later in the year. I am sure that hon. Members would prefer that modest rise to be followed by price stability. The Chancellor and I will look closely at this possibility, and it is clear that our freedom of manoeuvre, and indeed that of the BGC, will crucially be conditioned by whether the corporation is able to earn, pre-levy, a modest return from its domestic gas business—or whether, as before, industry is obliged to bear the entire burden on its own shoulders.
My answer to the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South about bulk electricity prices is that that is also a matter that my right hon. and learned Friend and I are considering.
I do not think that I should say anything further about those two matters—industry's gas prices and bulk electricity prices—in advance of the Budget. That, at the end of the day, is what is at issue in this debate. The increase in domestic gas prices announced for this year will, for the first time, enable the Gas Corporation to earn, pre-levy, a modest but positive return on this side of the business.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: Pre-levy?

Mr. Lawson: I am talking about pre-levy. Post-levy will still be a loss. Pre-levy it will now be a modest return.
From April, the domestic running tariff will be about the same as the price of firm gas to industry. From October industry has, at long last, the prospect of paying slightly less for gas than the domestic consumer, as its competitors do abroad, and as it should do, since the cost of supplying industry is markedly less.
All that will be achieved with a domestic gas price which, as I have said, will still leave gas cheaper than alternative fuels. Of course, in the long run, the gas requirements of industry will be satisfied, both as to price and as to adequacy of supply, by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, which the Opposition so dislike, since it


will end the Gas Corporation's monopoly in this field and introduce genuine competition into the business of supplying industry with the gas that it so badly needs.
In the short run it was essential that we restored a proper balance between domestic and industrial gas prices if the competitiveness of British industry was to be secured and the most economic use made of this vital natural resource. That is what is now within our grasp. By October of this year the long and painful process of adjustment in domestic gas prices will be over and a real prize will have been achieved: a source of highly competitive fuel for our industry, soon to be enlarged by the fruits of competition, at the same time as the user in the home will still be paying less for gas than for other fuels.
That is the prize that the Opposition, with their foolish motion, seek to snatch from the people of this country and from British industry. I ask the House to reject that motion and to secure that prize.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Government suffer from an obsession about the British Gas Corporation which, if translated into individual terms, would be classed as severely paranoid.
All last year we on this side of the House, together with most thinking people outside the House, had to beat off the attacks, based solely on doctrinaire obsessions, that the Government were making on the corporation. The House will recall the response from Conservative Members whenever the name of Denis Rooke or the British Gas Corporation was raised. What caused that response? The British Gas Corporation destroys all the most precious tenets of the Government. Its industry is successful and the Government cannot bear success, particularly in a nationalised industry.
Thus we have seen attacks on gas showrooms, on the very structure of the corporation itself through the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, which we are considering in Committee. Now we see yet another attack through the price mechanism.
It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say, on the one hand, that gas prices will become cheaper through the Government's privatisation measures—what I should prefer to call "piratisation"—of the British taxpayer in which the Secretary of State is engaged in Committee Room 8, when, on the other hand, he is busy implementing a policy which effectively sees the domestic consumer as a mulch cow to be drained to finance the public sector borrowing requirement. Thus, whatever good intentions the Secretary of State may have—I give him credit for occasionally having good intentions—in respect of gas prices, the combination of his measures will mean that the price of gas to the domestic consumer will continue to rise well beyond the planned price rises for the year.
Why are gas prices rising? It is true, and it would be foolish to deny, that it costs more for the British Gas Corporation to supply gas to the domestic consumer than it does to industry. But one of the joys of an integrated system and operation for gas is that costs can be averaged to the benefit of all. By putting up the cost to the domestic consumer, the Government are ensuring that those least able to pay will bear the heaviest cost.
Prices are rising not because the corporation needs the money—its massive profit of £350 million last year shows that clearly enough—but because the Government, having pledged themselves to cut taxes, have found it necessary to raise money in other ways. Hence the gas levy. During the Government's term of office prices in general have risen by 38 per cent. That is not a proud record for a Government who came to office with an absolutely firm commitment to fight inflation. Prices generally are 38 per cent. higher than they were two and a half years ago and inflation is still 2 per cent. higher than when the Government came into office. The price of gas for the same period has increased by a staggering 100 per cent. By that mechanism the Government have deliberately added 3 per cent. to the rate of inflation—a rise which could and should have been avoided.
Who suffers from those price rises? The gas industry and its workers certainly suffer because the public believes that they are responsible for this added imposition on an already stretched domestic budget. The consumer suffers, particularly those groups most at risk—the sick, the old, the very young and the unemployed.
It is no consolation to be told that during 1981 the rate of disconnection was the lowest for some years. That simply reflects the fact that people are choosing between heating and eating. That is clearly what has happened during the past few months. There is something obscene about a Government who put 3 million people on the dole, cut local authority expenditure so that facilities cannot be used to provide occupations and then freeze them out of their homes. There is something even more obscene when a Government cut old-age pensions allegedly to claw back a small miscalculation and then force up gas prices so that the old people suffer twice for no crime at all.
The rise in gas prices is a regressive tax which hits the poorest people considerably. Those in the lowest income brackets spend 15 per cent. of their average income on gas. For those earning £250 per week or more it is only 6 per cent. There is not much equity in that. It is an impossible form of energy conservation which uses a direct and regressive tax as a substitute for a proper programme.
This is a price rise which nobody in the gas industry wants or needs and which will clearly satisfy the wild men on the Government Back Benches by creating even more unpopularity for what is, by any stretch of the imagination, a most successful industry.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I have for some time felt a deep concern about increases in gas prices. I am sure that I represent the concern of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends over the impact that the rise in gas prices will have on the personal budgets of our individual constituents. There is no doubt that a rise substantially in excess of the rate of inflation this year will have an effect on their personal budgets, which will be to the detriment of money that they would have spent on other items in the household budget. The average rate of inflation is now about 12 per cent. and the private sector component is about 6 per cent.
It is clear that price rises in the public sector have had a direct and damaging impact on people's propensity to spend and on their net disposable incomes. That is bad for the private sector and bad for the Government's image.


The Government are rightly committed to restoring efficiency in the public sector and to reducing its size and the demands that it makes upon our constituents.
My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will understand and share these sentiments. They, like their Back Bench colleagues, are Members of Parliament with constituencies that inevitably have within them many who are in receipt of the lowest incomes and whose personal standard of living will be hard hit. In many instances they will find themselves hard pressed by increased gas prices. It is right that we should express our concern on their behalf on this occasion.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: In the Division tonight, I hope.

Mr. Nelson: I shall make what I hope will be taken as a constructive comment in describing the direction in which I should like the British Gas Corporation to move, with the Government's influence, to correct the burden of the cost that it is placing on the consumer, who is in turn our constituent. It would be wrong for us to reinstitute price controls to hold down prices for gas or for other energy supplies. To do so is to build up a much greater problem for the future. The arguments for holding back price increases apply equally to incomes policies. They are short-term measures that are designed as political expedients, and with the benefit of experience we should not lend our weight to them. I do not support the arguments for having subsidies or restrained prices.
I accept the general thrust of the policy that the price level for gas and other energy supplies must reflect longterm production costs. I must also accept that some of the disparity that has arisen between industrial and domestic gas prices has to be reduced if we are to have an efficient pattern of demand. Judging by the way in which demand for gas was outstripping that for other energy sources a few years ago, the movement in prices has had some effect in stifling the increased demand.
Should we have a target rate of return? I believe that we should. It would be easy for me and for others who would like to see lower gas prices to say "Let us have a lower rate of return, perhaps even a negative rate of return, with the Government writing off a loss for the corporation." I understand that the former proposed rate of return of 9 per cent. was replaced after the gas levy and accounting changes with one of 3·4 per cent. That seems to be a realistic rate of return for a major corporation. It is not by any means a high rate of return. However, it is a real rate of return as it is post-inflation. It is thoroughly right in the long term and we should seek a degree of bipartisanship in our modus vivendi. The industry should be well capable of achieving this target.
My second option, which is to lower the target rate of return, is one that I rule out. If we were to reduce it, it would result in the taxpayer having to write off increasing losses. It would almost certainly result in the corporation not having sufficient cash flow and reinvestment funds to fund the more costly extractive facilities of new gas fields.
There is a further option that I do not think has been mentioned enough. It is that the corporation should put its house in order. There is a great deal more to be said about the case for efficiency, economies and greater productivity within this great nationalised industry. I share with the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, some degree of admiration for the improvements that the corporation has

made in recent years, but I believe that it has a long way to go. What is more, many other nationalised industries have a long way to go in satisfying their customers that they are giving good value for money.
If we are to ask customers and taxpayers to shoulder the burden of much higher prices—prices that are rising by much more than the rate of inflation—they are much more .likely to accept the reasoning for those higher prices if we can assure them that the corporation and other nationalised industries are putting their houses in order and making much needed economies in the same way as the private sector, which has certainly had to do so in recent years.
It is all very well to talk in general about efficiency and economy but what does one mean specifically? I shall suggest one area in which there is an opportunity for greater efficiency and economies to be achieved. A cause of great offence to many of my constituents is the many maintenance vans that circulate our districts. This applies not only to the gas industry. Probably the greatest criticism in this respect could be made of British Telecom. The, criticism almost certainly applies to the other nationalised industries.
There is a great public conception—it is up to the Minister to argue that it is a great public misconception—that the productivity of maintenance workers generally is not especially high. This is something about which many of my constituents feel strongly. Many of them have written to me with allegations that maintenance vans have been parked for long periods in laybys. I have received letters suggesting that maintenance engineers from the nationalised industries call back much more frequently on a day-to-day basis than those from private sector companies that have to operate a similar service.

Mr. Eggar: Would my hon. Friend rule out the possibility of allowing the private sector to do all the maintenance work that is currently carried out by British Gas?

Mr. Nelson: I would not. My hon. Friend takes the very words from my mouth. That is an option that we. should consider seriously, and it is one that the corporation should consider. If it is too traumatic to consider doing it in bulk, there is a case for proceeding on an experimental or partial basis in some of the regions.
I understand from the corporation's annual report that it employs over 120,000 people of whom over 31,000 are involved in customer service and conversion work. The wages bill is understandably enormous. If we were to achieve really tight control over the distribution of service, either by privatising it in part or in whole, or by carefully examining productivity and the way in which customer service and conversion employees operate, there would be a substantial saving. As a Member of Parliament I am not able to consider these matters in great detail. However, I suggest from the House to those in the corporation who consider these matters that a great deal of improvement could be achieved.
Last year about 15 million customer jobs were fulfilled by the customer service division of the corporation. That is a considerable number of jobs and a considerable amount of work was involved. I understand that there were about 500,000 visits to check on gas fire safety. Undoubtedly that checking is important but it appears that it could be done quite easily by the private sector. There


is an argument for suggesting that the private sector should be allowed to tender for some of that work to ascertain whether corporation customers would get a better deal by proceeding in that way.
My criticisms should not mask the fact that there have been some improvements in targets and efficency of the customer services carried out by the British Gas Corporation. I pay tribute to those regions that have been awarded the "golden flame" and "silver flame", for maintaining high standards of customer services. I am also aware that there is a target standard of service for domestic customers, which has recently been revised. It is certainly no part of my remit to argue that the standard of service to customers should be substantially reduced. However, some pruning of costs could be conducted to the benefit of customers generally.
Finally, I eagerly look forward to the Budget Statement next week in the hope that we can give industry at least the prospect of certainty and restraint for future prices. It will be difficult for hon. Members to explain to their constituents why it will be necessary of the BGC—with its substantial liquid funds—to impose the sort of increases announced for this year. However, while I regret those increases, I support the need to move gas prices into line with others. Nevertheless, I reiterate, and cannot urge too strongly, that it would be far easier for people to accept these substantial increases if we gave them real evidence that this nationalised industry was being as active as the private sector has had to be in cutting back its own costs.

Mr. David Stoddart: In contrast with the Secretary of State's remarks, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) seems to have some understanding of the problems faced by his constituents and other hon. Members' constituents throughout the country. However, I fear that he does not appreciate how small his suggested savings would be. They would be very small when compared with the 10 per cent. increase, at the Government's behest, in gas prices this year.
On privatisation, my local authority in Swindon only recently changed from using the British Gas Corporation to a private enterprise firm. Since that firm took over the maintenance contracts, there has been a huge flood of complaints, not only to me but also to members of the council. I would, therefore, beware of that route to so-called "efficiency".
The Secretary of State had a real chance to redeem himself this afternoon. He was the chappy who ratted on the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment on the indexation of tax allowances; he cheated taxpayers out of much money by not indexing the allowances in the previous Budget. He might somewhat have redeemed himself, as the Secretary of State for Energy, by cancelling the 10 per cent. surcharge tax on gas prices. However, he did not, and, far from doing so, showed a complete lack of sympathy for those who have to bear the increases. For the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to tell people who are paying huge gas bills that their gas is being sold to them at too cheap a rate shows a complete lack of understanding, sympathy and compassion for those least able to bear those increases.
The Secretary of State also described the Government's decision to impose the 10 per cent. tax on gas prices, over

and above inflation, as an act of courage. It was not an act of courage; it was an act of abdication of their responsibilities for proper conservation measures. It was the easy way out and they took it. The Opposition's suggestions are not the easy way out, but they are rational and decent. The Government took the easy way out by simply increasing prices over and above the necessary increases.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Price is perhaps the biggest incentive to take note of on the need for conservation. If I am lucky enough to be called to speak, I shall try to explain to the hon. Gentleman how that has occured.

Mr. Stoddart: Price, while apparently being the only method of conservation known to the Government, causes hardship to a great many. If there are to be conservation measures, they ought to act directly on the flow of fuels. That is precisely what the Government failed to carry out. They had opportunities to ensure that there would be real savings of heat while maintaining comfort and reasonable conditions. That objective was swept aside by their sole aim of increasing prices.
On visiting constituents and organisations in my area during the spell of very bad weather in January, I discovered many cases of hardship; people were often afraid to turn their gas or other appliances on for fear of the subsequent bills. People suffered hardship and cold—particularly the old—because they were afraid that they would be unable to meet those bills.
The social services department held special meetings to try to reassure people that the Government would not be so hard and that they would implement special measures. Indeed, I contacted the Department to obtain some reassurance. However, many people were very cold because they were frightened of the subsequent bills.
Some bills have now materialised and mine is some 50 per cent. above last year's level. Although I can afford to pay it, many poor people are devastated by receiving a bill 50 per cent. above their expectations. It is unfortunate that the Government have shown such an unsympathetic attitude towards them.
I was horrified when I heard that the gas price was to be increased in a year by 22 per cent.; 10 per cent. plus 12 per cent., which really means 23·2 per cent. over the year. Therefore, I put down early-day motion No. 239 which was signed by 169 hon. Members. Seven others signed sympathetic motions. That shows the great feeling that the Government ought to alter their policy on the 10 per cent. surcharge.
An amendment was proposed by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and he was the only signatory. His amendment is sympathetic to the Government's policy, but nobody else saw fit to sign it, which shows that the anti-Government feeling on this issue is far more widespread than we might think by this afternoon's attendance. The failure of hon. Members to sign the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bedford shows a silent and surly protest over a Government policy that hon. Members know will affect their constituencies. I hope that they will follow that silent and surly protest by failing to vote for the Government amendment tonight. Perhaps that is too much to hope for, because Conservative members are usually loyal to their Front Bench in most circumstances.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will soon finish his speech and that I can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I can deal with some of the allegations that have been made.

Mr. Stoddart: I was not making any allegations. I was merely dealing with the facts as I see them on the Order Paper. I was making my own assumptions and comments.
The Secretary of State also talked about the long-term policy of the Government on conservation and prices. We are dealing at the moment with a specific circumstance and with matters as they now are. The Secretary of State also told us that industry is subsidising the domestic consumer and that the domestic consumer has had it easy while industry has had to pay much more. That argument needs closer examination. I understand the position of industry and the cost that it has had to bear compared with its competitors abroad. We have considered those matters in the Select Committee on Energy. I understand the argument and I sympathise with industry, but there is another side to the coin. The domestic consumer, although appearing to pay rather less than industry, pays a good part of the infrastructure costs of the industry, which would be much greater if the flow of the commodity were smaller. That argument is being put forward by the Government, but it needs more careful examination than it is being given. Even so, it is not good enough to say to the domestic consumer that under present circumstances he must be forced to pay the 10 per cent. surcharge, which neither the domestic consumer nor the gas corporation wish to have. At a time when they are suffering hardship with unemployment and other matters, consumers look askance at a Government who raise the price of an essential commodity to generate a tax take of about £750 million. Those consumers will not appreciate that.
This is the time for the Government to reconsider their long-range strategy, which is now in a bad way, to see how it affects people. Over 3 million people are unemployed. The Government are trying to insist to their employees that they must either take a low increase in salary or none. They say to most people that they should have an increase in salary of only 4 per cent., yet at the same time they are increasing gas prices by direct intervention by 10 per cent. over and above what the corporation feels is necessary to balance its books. The Government should now cancel that increase, which is what I sought in my early-day motion.
There have already been exchanges about the standing charge, which has caused much comment and a great spate of letters to every hon. Member. Perhaps it is not realised that, in the past two years, the standing charge has increased by more than 300 per cent. That is an enormous, unfair and inordinate increase. In equity, the Government should at least discuss the matter with the British Gas Corporation, because people—especially old people and those who use little gas—feel a great resentment that they are often paying much more in standing charge than for the commodity used. I urge the Government to take up that matter with the British Gas Corporation.
The Government, by their attitude so far, have shown an entirely unsympathetic view to the consumers. With circumstances as they are, I would expect them, if not to support the Opposition motion—it calls for a cancellation of the increase—to the hilt, at least to cancel the instruction to the corporation that it should increase prices by 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation. Nothing else will do.

Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At a meeting of the Committee on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill this morning, the Chairman accepted a sittings motion following representations from Opposition Members that they wished to take part in the debate, but there is only one Member here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whatever happens in a Standing Committee is not a matter for me.

Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) put his points with his usual fluency and determination. It is a matter of regret that there are hardly any Labour Members present to listen to them, as indeed there were hardly any Labour Members here to listen to the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), when he opened the debate on this censure motion.
It is a matter of considerable regret to me that I take part in the debate at all. Only once before have I been unable to support the Government, and that was about the nationality of the people of Gibraltar. I am especially sorry that I cannot support my right hon. Friend and Leicestershire colleague, the Secretary of State. He has been lumbered with a policy that he did not devise. Perhaps he supports it now—whether out of duty or conviction or both. However, I am sure that his political antennae, which are considerable, would never have allowed him to devise it in the first place. This policy is born of academic unworldliness mated with producer self-interest. It does nothing for the consumer. It undermines the Government's wider economic strategy and hits hardest at some of the thriftiest members of the community. It is not even needed by the gas industry.
Of course, I understand the intellectual justifications for the policy that new gas fields will cost more, that domestic gas barely breaks even, that demand greatly exceeds supply and that higher prices may induce conservation. All those reasons are familiar. As Eliza Doolittle said in "My Fair Lady":
There isn't one I haven't heard".
However, I strongly blame myself for the fact that I allowed myself to be persuaded two years ago, against my better judgment, to support the Government. After all, there is a different academic argument about gas, which energy Ministers prefer not to deploy because it upsets other producers. That argument could be that gas is, in essence, a cheap and popular product. The customers wish to use it extensively. Competition would encourage other energy producers, especially those involved with domestic or industrial heating and cooking, to hold down their costs and prices.
But instead we have a Conservative Government imposing a deliberate price surcharge on this popular product and then countering with an excess profits tax to cream off the results of that levy. That is producer-dominated economics in any language. The only justification for it is along the lines of the experts who favour the artificial restriction of energy sources in the alleged interests of guaranteeing supplies for future generations.
What hogwash those predictions have turned out to be. If every producer-dominated forecasting organisation had its computers thrown down an oil well and its slide rules


turned into the sails of a windmill, not a bird would fall from the trees. My right hon. Friend, with his fine sceptical mind, should find out what the energy experts want and do the opposite. In a literal sense, as far as energy is concerned, sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Of course, this not just an arcane academic issue, as the great Bishop Latimer once called it,
for school-doctors and such fooleries".
It is directly contrary to the Government's counter-inflation policy. Nothing is more important to the success of the Chancellor's wider economic aims than sensible wage settlements in the current pay round. Ministers continually tell the public, quite rightly, that job prospects depend vitally on keeping down unit costs in our factories. No one doubts that. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost because we failed to stay competitive. There were some suicidal settlements from 1979 to 1980 and we are all paying for them now.
It is unreasonable to expect negotiators to ignore externally imposed costs. From September 1980 to September 1981 the level of inflation in the public sector—the nationalised industries—was double that of the retail prices index. It was around 22 per cent. against 11 per cent. In many parts of the retail trade prices actually fell and the rate of inflation was negative. This high level of public sector prices cannot be reasonable or sensible. For this wage round, it is little short of suicidal.
Private sector wage settlements continue to be modest and sensible, public sector ones less so. We all know that nothing would make for an easier and quieter pay round than if there were a price standstill for 12 months in public sector charges. For some of them, such as steel or the railways, this is patently impossible without massive Government subsidies, as happened in 1972 and 1973. None of us would welcome such subsidies, which were introduced by a Conservative Government and abolished by a Labour one. But the profit-making nationalised industries, such as gas and telecommunications, do not need sharp price increases this year. Their prices could be held steady without financial harm to those nationalised industries as a whole. There need not be a penny of Government subsidies and the help to wage negotiators would be enormous.
The effect on the public would be considerable. My right hon. Friends would be well advised to appreciate the strength of public feeling on this matter. Although the April gas price increase will be the fifth in a series of six announced two years ago, it comes at a time of extreme public exasperation at rising public charges. It will need to be paid at the same time as sharply increased rate and rent bills and rising telephone bills.
Most people are seeing their standard of living fall as wage increases fail to reach the level of inflation. That is inevitable and, unfortunately, necessary, if economic stability is to be achieved, but there is no need to add to the problem unnecessarily.
People could understand gas price increases if gas were making a loss. They might even accept an increase in line with inflation if they were persuaded that it was necessary in the interest of conservation of supply. But to persuade them that a product that is in such substantial profit that it merits an excess profits levy should be raised in price by 10 per cent. more than the rate of inflation at a time when standards of living are falling requires a combination

of the reasoning of Socrates and the oratory of Demosthenes. Even my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might find that a hard act to follow.

Mr. Skeet: I am concerned about my hon. Friend's approach to the levy. The British Gas Corporation never paid petroleum revenue tax on its earlier gas, and unfortunately it did not pay the producers a large sum. Therefore, the corporation bought cheaply and sold expensively, and it is on that and that alone that the levy is imposed.

Mr. Latham: My hon. Friend can go over the technicalities as much as he wishes. I am trying to think of the consumer on this occasion.
I accept at once that there is a new generous heating allowance, helping 2½ million people. I welcome this innovation by Ministers, but it is of no help to the modestly paid and it is particularly galling to the recently retired with modest savings and occupational pensions. These are the people who most resent the gas price increases—elderly people who do not qualify for supplementary benefit or other means-tested assistance, and who pride themselves on their thrift and personal independence. I am sure that Ministers recognise immediately the type of people to whom I am referring. They are a vital bulwark of the Conservative Party and we ignore their annoyance and dissatisfaction at our peril. They have no unions to fight for them. They have only this House. We should listen to their voice.
Ministers argue, as did my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in two answers to me on 23 February, that it is essential that the three-year programme to correct "imbalances in the gas market" be completed and that this is the last year of the programme. As for 1983, no decisions have yet been taken. If Ministers want my support tonight they will have to go further.
I accept that the April increase will have to go ahead; it is probably too late to stop it now. That alone could raise prices by nearly 13 per cent. in 1982, above the current rate of inflation. We do not need the further 10 per cent. increase in October. That should be cancelled forthwith. As for 1983, my right hon. Friend should say tonight that the wider interests of counter-inflation policy lead him to believe that the correct gas increase for next year is nil, or, at the very most, 3 per cent. below the rate of inflation. If the Government listen to their supporters in the country, they will take action along those lines.
I did not want to have to make this speech, but I make an appeal to my right hon. Friend, whose intellect and shrewdness I greatly respect, which I hope will register with him. He should ask himself whether artificially high gas price increases, accompanied by excess profit levies, are a natural policy for the Conservative Party. Do they meet any basic Conservative criteria? Do they help consumers? Do they reduce inflation? Do they minimise public sector burdens? Do they, in any way, feel right from a Conservative point of view? The answer to those questions is "No". We still have time to get things right, but we should start tonight.

Mr. David Penhaligon: In the debate on the original legislation, I expressed little sympathy for what was being proposed. I feel that past increases make the argument for cancellation of the future increases even


stronger, as the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) has just said. Gas is the cheapest fuel, and some areas do not have access to it. That means that there is a considerable disparity between those areas that have gas and those that do not. I am as aware of this, in my part of the country, as any hon. Member. I should be surprised to learn that even half of my constituents have access to gas, although I have never investigated the matter.
Therefore, I repeat the argument that I presented the last time we discussed this. The Government could have proposed this legislation originally on the basis that gas is the cheapest fuel and that that it is unfair to some consumers, and that the enormous sums being raised by this tax on gas will be used to promote a massive conservation programme throughout the United Kingdom, or as some form of help for those obliged to use other forms of fuel. Had that been done, I could have seen the object of the proposals.
The Government propose to do neither. People in some of the more remote parts of the country have yet to enjoy the delights of electricity, let alone the delights of gas. Their fuel bills are a tremendous embarrassment to them. Therefore, I support the Opposition motion. I do it for once with the real conviction that they are promoting something that is right and proper, and good for the general interest.
If the Government tonight said that the Budget will announce that the massive sum being raised is to be used to help people with other fuels or to encourage conservation, insulation or draught proofing I would see the logic of the Government's stance. However, it is clear that their only interest is the amount of money produced for the PSBR. As one who believes that the PSBR is not one tenth as important as the Government tell us that it is, I can see little good reason why anybody on the Liberal Bench should support the Government tonight. I hope that Conservative Members, who have said things tonight that I rather admire, will go into the Division Lobby to show Government that there is not universal support on their side for this motion. Certainly from reading comments in the local press it seems that there is not universal support. Government Members seem to interpret all these price increases as sheer incompetence on the part of British Gas—which, clearly, is not true.
I hope, therefore, that Conservative Back Benchers will push the Government in this respect. The power to persuade the Government to change their minds is totally in their hands. I suspect that the Opposition will be united against the Government proposals. I would settle for a clear statement from the Government that the money will be used to help people with their fuel bills because that is the logic of the argument that they have adduced. Until we get an assurance on that, I see no reason why I should persuade my colleagues to support the Government.

Mr. John H. Osborn: My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) lucidly expressed the concern of many Government supporters, and I have immense sympathy with what he said. Nevertheless, this debate is about the price that the housewife, pensioner, the aged and the infirm have to pay for their hot water, house heating, and cooking. I cannot accept the "opportunism out of hypocrisy"—to use the

words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his accurate description of the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees).
The Opposition motion says
That this House regrets the decision of Her Majesty's Government to increase domestic gas prices by 22 per cent.
In fact, this matter should not be the concern of Governments. That is why the Government are in a mess. The tragedy today is that even a Conservative Government, because of the inheritance of three periods of Socialist Government, cannot escape some responsibility for the gas industry and British Gas. As I have said before, and I do not hesitate to reiterate now, after every Socialist Government, Conservative Ministers find themselves presiding over the legacy of their predecessors. That is what is happening to my right hon. Friend today. One of the direct causes of the muddle over gas prices is that for too many decades in energy production and distribution true market forces and pressures have been absent. Perhaps this is the catastrophe of nationalisation. It is one more instance in which it is difficult for Members of Parliament to do other than describe the ills as opposed to finding the solutions.
What can we do about the problem? There are political and technological aspects to it. Many of us, including myself, both in European Committees and in the energy studies committee and other committees, are concerned and hope that Governments can pick their way out of the mess and find a solution.
First, I shall deal with some of the political aspects of the situation. In Sheffield, where I live, let alone other cities and towns, three generations of people have been nurtured on the Welfare State. Those people believe, as of right, that they should have cheap and subsidised housing, bus fares—this is typical of South Yorkshire—and education. To all intents and purposes, in an economic sense they live in a type of Communist society parallel to that which prevails in the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. This approach extends to energy—the heating of the home, heating for cooking, and lighting.
This debate is about gas prices and gas policy. Therefore I shall seek to confine my observations to gas. However, the production and the marketing of gas cannot be isolated from the production and marketing of oil. Gas and oil tend to be found together, and gas is often the by-product of oil extraction. Oil is a market-oriented product. It is more readily transportable. Regrettably, it has a world price, which is normally set by OPEC countries. However, in the long term—in spite of short term distortions—the price of gas, given free market forces, cannot be isolated or unconnected from the price of oil, which is now so expensive that we as consumers are learning to do without it. Indeed, that is why the price of petrol has come down. Today, if oil, because of political manipulation of its prices for political reasons by OPEC, is to too great an extent subject to obscure market forces, the long-term situation of rising scarcity cannot be avoided. Thus real pressures face gas, electricity and coal, and I shall deal with three aspects of the problem.
First, 22 years ago, I made my maiden speech on gas. As an industrialist, I was aware that the cost of heating in the factory that I was about to build, let alone that in my home, would depend on adequate standards of insulation and adequate heat conservation. Unfortunately, what were high standards 22 years ago are indequate today. It is even


more unfortunate that we have a large stock of housing which is damp and is subject to uneconomic heating because of the poor insulation. Perhaps it would be right to have a grant, subsidy or some form of tax assistance for more heat conservation measures, in spite of what the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) said.
In the last 10 years, the price of gas has fallen, while the price of oil has more than doubled. I had to decide how to heat my house. In 1960 I thought that electricity would be the answer. In a country that has hydro-electric power—Norway is still such a country, in spite of its gas—electric heating makes sense. I chose oil, but oil is now expensive, and when I was forced to bring in a new form of heating when replacing my existing system I chose to be dual-fired. Eventually, gas and oil prices per therm must balance, and to depend on one is false economy. I come back to the point that heat conservation is all important and that we should take steps in this direction, including double glazing, insulation, and better building standards.
Second, since the Yom-Kippur war in 1973, Members of Parliament have been aware of the growing scarcity, but there are many people in the country who do not want to know about it. My right hon. Friend talked about the Price Commission report in June 1979 and the need to increase gas prices by 30 per cent. in equal increments, the last of which is the 22 per cent. that faces us now. Industrial consumers feel that they are subsidising domestic consumers. The balance between industrial and domestic prices should be explained, not only in this country but throughout the Community. In Germany and France, the domestic consumer pays half as much again for his gas as his counterpart in this country. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take care when he answers my questions next Monday. We hope that something can be done. The Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill is a move in the right direction, but could the announcement about this latest tranche of price increases already agreed to not have been made more tactfully, and could not the situation have been explained by my right hon. Friend? I suspect that the chairman of the Gas Corporation has not been very helpful. I hope that my right hon. Friends will explain the situation.
My third point is a political one. I have Conservative supporters in my constituency who cannot accept these increases. It is not only political opponents who cannot accept them. Yet when I say to industrialists that energy is scarce and that the price is bound to increase in one form or another, they still expect the Government to do something about it. That is the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend finds himself.
I shall conclude my speech by making one or two technical observations. Some hon. Members were with one of the oil companies today. I am concerned about the production companies which are members of the United Kingdom Offshore Oil Association. They are concerned that the petroleum revenue tax and other taxes are taking 85 to 95 per cent. of the balance between the cost of production and extraction and the sale price. Unless the market prices are high enough for the gas that they produce, it will not be worth while extracting the gas in the marginal fields. In fact, it is hardly worth while building the pipeline.
That has been my right hon. Friend's trouble with the gas-gathering pipeline. At the end of the day, there is a

monopoly buyer for gas. Even the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill leaves a monopoly with regard to the domestic market, which probably accounts for 75 per cent. of total sales of gas. Therefore, my right hon. Friend has nibbled in the right direction, but I doubt whether he has gone far enough.
The problem of the price of energy, whether to the domestic user or the industrialist, is still great in Sheffield. Recently my right hon. Friend enabled some of us to have a presentation of a tariff structure from the Electricity Council. It is reassuring to note that in the steel industry in Sheffield it is beginning to make sense for electricity, but the renegotiation of gas tariffs is agony for the members of the British Independent Steel Producers Association and the steel industry of Sheffield.
As a Conservative Member of Parliament, over the past 12 months I have had to account for Government decisions in this area which I fully support. I should have liked to see the National Coal Board, the British Gas Corporation and the Central Electricity Generating Board explain to their users and to their customers, as I have had to do, as do salesmen of other products in a free enterprise world, more of what their problems are and more of what their policies are. But because they are State monopolies they can turn to Governments and Members of Parliament supporting the Government to do it for them.
I turn briefly to a long-term strategy. There is oil in the North Sea, and the British and the Norwegians have it. There is also gas in the North Sea. In a different sense altogether, the Germans and French find that because of a lack of entrepreneurial flair in Britain they are not able to get the gas. If they can obtain gas more cheaply, let the British have access to that gas. If they cannot, let us have the opportunity of selling it. I hope that Britain, Norway and other EEC countries will join together on gas as they are beginning to do with electricity, so that European countries can tackle the problems together. The consumer wants to be treated fairly, and, because of the circumstances of the past 30 years, he rightly bears a grudge and the Government must face that.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on a courageous and honest speech. I have been in the House of Commons for a long time—too long, no doubt. I have been in the House for 37 years and I can tell the hon. Member to stand up for his convictions and for what he believes and to vote for what he believes because—

Mr. Russell Kerr: My hon. Friend has voted against the Government and the Whips.

Mr. Lewis: I have done that many times. The hon. Member will find that in time, when he is proved right, he will be pleased. He will also find that some, if not the greatest, parliamentarians were in the same position as he is in today. The hon. Gentleman should take no notice of Ministers who try to talk him out of standing up for his convictions. They all do that. I was one of the original Heinz 57 varieties. I am proud of that.
Other Conservative Members should understand that this is not a political issue, but a humanitarian issue that affects every one of our constituents. There is not an hon. Member here, irrespective of whether his views are Right, Left or Centre, who can find anything to complain about or contradict in the motion, which states:


That this House regrets the decision of Her Majesty's Government to increase domestic gas prices by 22 per cent. in 1982".
Will anyone tell me that he does not regret that decision? If so, let him tell his constituents and the House, or let him get in the local press. The motion also states:
and demands that this policy be not implemented.
It might have been better if the word "requests" had been used. The only wrong word that any hon. Member can find in the motion is "demands" instead of "requests".
Every hon. Member is concerned with the matter. I am not concerned whether he is rich or poor or whether he represents an industrial or a rural constituency. In our constituencies old-age pensioners, the sick, the disabled, the blind, the infirm and so on cannot meet their bills. We receive letters from those people telling us that they cannot meet their bills.
Many people receive pensions today who have saved a little money and have been thrifty. They have gone without holidays or colour television so that they can put by a little money. However, they find that someone else who has not been so thrifty, who has a colour television and has been on holiday in Majorca can receive help with his gas bills. Therefore, the people who have saved money feel hurt. They ask "Why am I told that my gas bill will go up again by 22 per cent? What have I done to deserve this?"
Those people might have an old black and white television and turn it on only to see that a Government Department says that we should save energy. Those people have cut down, however, and might not have used any gas in one quarter, but they still must pay the standing charge, which has also risen.
The Minister says that he cannot interfere. Of course he can. The late, great Aneurin Bevan once said in the House that the House could do anything except give a man a baby. If the Minister wanted to act, he could do so tomorrow. He could see that the gas prices are reduced and that the standing charge is stopped. A special regulation or Bill might be required, but I am sure that if the Minister came to the House and said that both sides of the House were asking him to stop standing charges and therefore he would have to introduce a Bill, he would get it through on the nod.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Tory Government are concerned about where they would get the money, I can tell them that there are plenty of areas where they are spending money unnecessarily. Billions of pounds are being spent on useless defence. In the last few days shares at Amersham International have been bought, amounting to a loss to the taxpayer of £25 million. Why should not that money be used for the standing charge?

Mr. Lewis: If my hon. Friend had heard my opening remarks he would know that I have no intention of being political. He is stirring up the political aspect, but I am serious. I do not want to do that. This matter is above politics.
I have heard the Prime Minister say that she feels sorry for the nurses. I believe her. I think that she does. She says that she cannot interfere, but she is increasing the price of gas, and nurses use gas. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is fighting like billy-o for the textile workers. Many textile workers are unemployed, but they also have gas bills.
The Government have told the nurses that they cannot have more than a 4 per cent. pay rise. The textile workers

dare not ask for anything because of unemployment. However, the Government are increasing the price of gas by 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation. How can the Government say to people such as Mr. Arthur Scargill "Your miners must not ask for much in the way of wage increases, but we are going to increase gas prices by 22 per cent."? I know what Mr. Scargill will say.
The Government are deliberately causing inflation. They are deliberately exacerbating the industrial problems that confront the trade unions and employers. Their actions are making things difficult for the poorer paid sections of the community. The Government's amendment states that they will tackle the under-pricing
over a three-year period".
The Government do not say what will happen at the end of three years. Is the process to cease, or will there be an annual revision?

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will my hon. Friend agree that Mr. Arthur Scargill will be very upset with his members if he catches them burning gas?

Mr. Lewis: The point I seek to make is that if the trade union leaders—coal miners or anyone else—see the Government deliberately increasing the weekly expenditure of their members, they will naturally use that as support for further wage claims.
The nurses, the civil servants, public service workers and local government officers have all been told that they cannot have more than 4 per cent. I do not argue whether the Government are right or wrong—they may be right—but the Government are setting this limit of 4 per cent. and at the same time deliberately increasing gas prices by 12 per cent., whether those workers like it or not . Even the gas boards do not want the higher prices.
That is a ludicrous approach. The Government are deliberately causing inflation and harming the poorer sections of our population. They are deliberately causing difficulties for industrial peace. How can anyone support the Government in that?
Some Conservative Members might feel that they should not support the Government. They should not worry about threats of the Government falling. This situation used to happen regularly. In 1945 it was argued that the Government would fall over a proposal to increase the cheese ration by 2 oz. Never in your life.
The Government will have to accept the will of the House and find some way of meeting it. They will not call a general election merely because some of their supporters did not support them on a 22 per cent. increase in gas prices. They will find some way of putting it right Conservative Members who supported that approach would gather the glory in their constituencies. They would be able to claim that they had achieved something good for their constituents and for the Tory Party. It would be the Tory Party that gained the credit.
Standing charges are a crying shame and disgrace. I know of no other industries, private or public, which charge people for something that they do not have or do not use, and that may not even exist. Those who leave their homes for some good reason, probably to look after an aged and sick father or mother, or even a girl friend, may not use a single therm of gas for the whole 13 weeks of the quarter. Yet, when the bill arrives, it still contains the standing charge. Those who are away from home for six months will face the two sets of standing charges.
I am not presented with a standing charge when I take my car to be serviced or my suit to be repaired. I am charged for the work. It is a farce to say that the standing charge is for road openings and such matters. It is simply an easy way to tax the poor, the sick, the disabled and the infirm who cannot escape the charge.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that the same facilities were previously provided without the standing charge and that the monopolies operated at a profit? Why is there the need to tax us through these standing charges which most people, as the hon. Gentleman says, find unacceptable? I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am one of those hon. Members who intends to exercise his right as a Back Bencher. I shall not support the Government. I shall not support the Opposition motion. I shall, however, abstain to show my objection to my Government's energy policy.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has a good record. I accept that he cannot support the Opposition. He has, however declared himself. It is ludicrous, when a profit is being made, that there should be such a charge. It applies to only three undertakings, electricity, British Telecom and gas. There is no standing charge for water. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, there is."] I stand corrected. That makes things worse.
There is nothing to stop the Government announcing tonight that they will find ways of ending this situation. I do not want to hear what the civil servants and advisers say. They rule the country. I have watched Front Benchers arguing and fighting between themselves. I have been here long enough to know that the speech read out by Ministers of one Government is the same as that read out by Ministers when the other side assumes power and that it is prepared by the same people. The civil servants have to be told to find some means of ending this situation. The Government can say tonight that, although they have not yet found a way, they are pledged to end these pernicious standing charges.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The debate so far has ranged over the economic, political and social aspects of the subject under discussion. The Opposition have placed great emphasis on the social aspects. That aspect cannot be disregarded. It is to the credit of the Government that they are spending, as the Minister stated, a very large sum, amounting, I think, to £250 million on the social aspect. I commend them for that.
I take the opposite view to the Minister on this matter because I do not want to see an escalation of the money that must be paid out on the social side. I would prefer that the price was not increased so much, so that more people could afford to pay. I agree strongly with what my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) said. He suggested that many people who do not claim social security are hard hit by price rises of this type.
Energy is an important commodity in Britain. We have long, bad winters. People have been encouraged to install central heating appliances and many have chosen gas. The Minister must know that there has been an increase in gas customers in recent years. By my book, when the number

of customers rises, the price of the product should fall. We are therefore going contrary to the normal market situation and the Government are encouraging it.
For two years I have lived with the doubling of prices. I accept that the Government were right to do that. The Opposition had held back increases for political reasons. The figures are there to see. The Labour Government held back prices partly for political and partly for social reasons. They felt that there was some advantage to be gained from doing that. The present Government have had to catch up. We have lived with that process for two years.
When the Minister announced the plan for price increases two years ago, I said that I would not commit myself three years ahead. I believe it is not justifiable to double prices three years on the trot. I have no intention of voting for the Government amendment today unless the Minister will compromise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Melton said, the Minister can compromise easily by making do with one increase of 11 per cent. I do not understand the reasoning behind the assertion that this would actually entail an increase of more than 11 per cent., but if the Minister increases that figure by a further 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., I could live with that and I think that my constituents could live with it. I will not accept that it is justifiable to have a double increase again this year.
I am sick and tired of nationalised industries imposing inflationary price rises. This one, like some of the others, has been encouraged by the Government. We hear from Treasury Ministers—the Minister has just come hot-foot from the Treasury—that we must beat inflation. We have heard that for a number of years from Treasury Ministers and from the Prime Minister, who is First Lord of the Treasury. I do not disagree with that, but we have spent more than two and a half years trying to beat inflation. So far as the nationalised industries are concerned, with inflation the Government are tackling a moving target. They cannot achieve the reduction that they want because those industries increase prices and so inflation as fast as the Government try to bring it down. Nationalised industries are the Government's industries. They are not run by the Government, but the Government control them. It is the Executive, not the House of Commons, which controls them.
Every price increase stemming from the nationalised industries is an increase in the cost of living index. There is a price increase more than once a year. Tonight it is gas, but the same applies to electricity, telephones, postage, and the rest. If the industry is owned by the Government, people must pay higher price increases than for commodities produced by the private sector.
My right hon. Friend made the fair point that the Government were imposing a double increase in gas prices for the third year running because they wanted to equalise prices, as industrial users had been paying more and domestic consumers had been paying less. I have looked at the figures, and I reckon that they have already caught up. Certainly by the time that the 11 per cent. increase has been imposed in April the domestic users will have completely caught up. Industrial users will be better off than they were when the Government came to office, and they will be no worse off if the Government decide not to impose the extra second increase on the domestic tariff.
The aim of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill now in Standing Committee is to put the production of North Sea gas on a competitive basis. Presumably, gas will become cheaper. Otherwise, it would be pointless for a


Conservative Government to put the Bill through. We obviously believe that competition makes things cheaper. If it makes gas cheaper, as I believe that it will, there will be no need for the extra price increase in October.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend has noticed that the price of oil has been falling steadily. We know that it will not go right down, but it will fall a little further and it will stay down. That was predictable. The Government will lose a little tax, but they gain a great deal of tax from North Sea oil in any case. Gas prices must be related to the production cost of oil. So the likely effect of the Bill now in Committee and the prospective reduction in oil prices justifies the Minister saying today that the Government have been convinced by the arguments of Back Benchers, especially those of his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford, and that the Government will therefore make a concession.
The Government are trying to keep increases in public sector wages and salaries down to about 4 per cent. I have not noticed the Gas Corporation keeping pay increases down to the Government's norm. If workers employed by the corporation see that the Government are imposing further price increases on the consumer and see the revenue of their corporation being topped up, will they not regard that as justification for seeking higher wage awards? The Government would do better to tell the corporation and those employed in it that they wish to give the consumer a fair deal and that the employee should support that fair deal by not demanding large wage and salary increases.
My right hon. Friend has said that this is the third and last year of the big increases—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is a general election soon."]—and then there will be a concession and medals for us all. [HON. MEMBERS: "And votes."] My right hon. Friend might be promoted next year. One Minister never binds his successor. Whether or not that is so, I do not like large increases one year and small increases the next year. I thought that we were complaining about the Labour Party doing just that. I should prefer a reasonable increase in 1982 and another reasonable increase in 1983. The consumer is fed up with the swings and the roundabouts and wants a little bit of "steady as you go" on pricing, particularly with pricing where the Government are involved.
In the private sector, prices are steadying across the board. Many of them are falling. In the next few years the Government cannot afford to allow high price rises to continue in the public sector. We have had enough of that. It is the duty of Ministers—in the interests of the country—to ensure that this escalation stops.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: This debate is similar to that on pensioners a fortnight ago. Several hon. Members have been shedding crocodile tears. I do not mean any disrespect to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), who made a very good speech. I hope that he and those who have expressed their concern about the increase in gas prices will show the British people who will have to pay them that they mean what they say. If they do not do so, the debate will have been futile.
The debate has continued along the same lines as most debates in this Chamber. I do not say that other Governments have been better than this Government, but they seem to think that the main defence in such debates is to prove that the right hon. Member for Timbuktu said

something a little different when he was in Government. That does not alter the problems created for our gas consumers by the vicious decision to increase gas prices by 22 per cent.
It cannot be refuted that this is purely and simply a back-door method of taxation to ensure that lower paid workers pay the same standard tax as higher paid workers and those on vast incomes. There was a similar policy behind the overall 15 per cent. increase in VAT. That is what this is all about. If it is not, the Minister should tell us what it is about, because people have a right to know.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) said that politics should not be brought into such a debate. I do not know how you can divorce politics from this issue, but I appreciate the point.
In the last year's annual report of the British Gas Corporation, Sir Denis Rooke said:
After such a year the management of most businesses would expect the owners to want them to continue in the same vein and perhaps to ask them if extra support might add to the achievement in future years.
That is common sense. A successful business could well be expected to carry on in the same vein.
As recently as 25 February, the North Eastern Gas Consumers' Council issued a press release which is highly relevant. It states:
At a recent meeting of the North Eastern Gas Consumers' Council, Members … repeated their views expressed on a number of occasions, that price increases should be based only on the financial needs of the Industry. Whilst being well aware of the Government's policy imposed on British Gas that prices should rise 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation over three years … they felt that British Gas Corporation had not told them any reason why they needed the extra money.
Why does the British Gas Corporation need the extra money? Does it need it, or will the money go to help the public sector borrowing requirement? If that is so, the increase is purely and simply back-door taxation. Perhaps there is something more sinister in the Government's mind. Perhaps they have a deliberate policy to inflate gas charges with a view to selling the British Gas Corporation.
Hon. Members will agree that in the past two or three years the gas industry has made colossal profits. Perhaps the profits will increase and the industry will then be privatised, just as another industry has recently been privatised. Perhaps the gas industry will be sold and will become loot for the boys. Some newspapers have suggested—I put it no higher than that—that some of those who voted for the privatisation of Amersham International were beneficiaries of loot for the boys. At the same time, through this increase the Government are taxing those who can ill afford, or cannot pay, the bills and who would prefer to freeze than to face large gas bills. If the Government are increasing prices for that reason it is criminal and unforgiveable. Only time will tell, but if that is so the British public will know.
The motion states that it "regrets the decision" that has been made. There have been some encouraging signs from Conservative Members that they regret the decision. Some of them said that although they would not vote with the Conservative Party tonight they would not vote for the motion. What hypocrisy. Is there one hon. Member in the Chamber who does not regret the increase in gas prices? If there is, will he put his hand up? If you do regret it, you should vote for the motion tonight. If you regret the decision but do not vote for the motion, you are displaying nothing but hypocrisy.
I do not want to call you "hypocrites", because that would be unparliamentary. People are sick and tired of all the speeches that try to prove that the increases are necessary. It is impossible to prove to those who will have to meet the colossal charges that there is a need for an increase when the corporation makes vast profits and when the chairman of the corporation makes statements such as those that I have cited.
If democracy means anything, if it is not a game of "kid 'em", a game of fooling the public, then I hope that you believe what you say tonight and support this motion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that in future hon. Members will not keep saying "you" because that involves me in a way that will get me into trouble.

Mr. Tim Eggar: I hope that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks directly.
Our gas pricing policy has developed in a most curious way. We must be the only country consciously to have set out to sell gas to domestic consumers considerably more cheaply than to industry. That has happened because Governments of both parties have, for political reasons, deliberately urged the British Gas Corporation to keep down the domestic price of gas. It is a fine tribute to this Government and to the decision of my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Transport that he was prepared to break that cycle and take the considerable political rap that that involved.
What has been the result of this curious pricing policy over the last 10 years? First, the cost of gas to the domestic consumer has fallen both in real terms and as a percentage of wages. It is the only energy source to which that has happened. In addition, the disparity between gas and other fuel prices had become considerably greater before my right hon. Friend's decision.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is unfair, when 40 per cent. of households have no gas, that the 60 per cent. that have it should be subsidised—because that is what it amounts to—by the rest.

Mr. Allen McKay: rose—

Mr. Eggar: I am sorry, I will not give way. I am conscious of the pressure of time.
I would not make this as a constituency point, in any case, because I represent a constituency where every household can have gas if it wishes. From a national point of view, however, under-priced gas makes no sense.
Like all other hon. Members, I have been under considerabe pressure from industry about the level of gas prices. Why have gas prices been so high here until now when compared with those on the Continent and in the United States? It is because the British Gas Corporation has been forced by Government policy—the policy of both parties—and by its own predilection, one might add, to make all its profits out of industry. At a time when both sides agree that our major priority must be the reduction of industry's costs, we must be prepared—and I totally support the Government in this—to make a sacrifice in terms of political popularity in order to reduce industry's costs. In the long run, the country will applaud rather than criticise us for it.
I have, however, one point to make, and that is the criticism I made of the Secretary of State's decision at the

time that the 10 per cent. per annum real increase was announced, namely, that it did nothing to put pressure on the British Gas Corporation to reduce its costs and increase its efficiency. I know he would argue that he is doing this through the cash limits system and the targeted rate of return. Nevertheless, I hope that when he comes to consider the pricing policy for the next and subsequent years he will put a slightly higher priority on ensuring that the real increases in gas prices are to some extent absorbed by insisting that the BGC increases its efficiency. I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on this.
One aspect of the corporation's charging policy that has been of considerable concern to me is that of standing charges. I agree with both the British Gas Corporation and the consumer councils that there must be some kind of charge built in to cover meters, fixtures, fittings and so on. That is reasonable. It is also reasonable that the charge should be collected on the basis of the true economic cost of supplying that service.
However, I understand the concern of pensioners in my constituency when, especially in the summer months, they use small amounts of gas and find that the cost of this low consumption is dwarfed by the higher standing charge. I hope that the Minister, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, will investigate the possibility of offering consumers a choice between a standing charge and lower unit cost or a higher unit cost and no standing charge because, after all, the connection charges have to paid for in any case.
That has been done, quite rightly, with water charges. One can now have a water meter installed if one wishes and pay for one's consumption. There is a choice between paying straight water rates and paying meter costs. I can see no difficulty in providing the same option for gas consumers. That is something the Government should support.
I recognise the considerable courage shown by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in supporting the policy put forward by his predecessor of a 10 per cent. real increase this year. It is the only way in which we can afford to keep industry's energy costs down to a reasonable level. I hope that, in recognition of this, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe) will make it clear on 9 March that gas price increases for industry will be kept within a very low limit this year.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: The gas bill increases have had a bigger impact on my constituents than anything I can remember since I came to the House two or three years ago. I can think of no other occasion when, as happened in my surgery last weekend, I saw two elderly people in tears because they did not know how they were going to pay their gas bill. The effect of the electricity and gas bills that have been coming through the letter boxes in the last week or two has been absolutely devastating on hard-working, hard-pressed and thrifty people. I hope that this House will be able to respond to the feelings and the problems of these people and to the current situation.
There is widespread concern about the problem of standing charges. I do not intend to go over an already well trodden path in this debate but it is something that causes considerable resentment amongst people who have been hit by these bills. My own hope is that the Government will


reconsider whether it is advisable or necessary to press these increases at this time. For the longer term, I regard it as equally important that some Government take the whole question of energy saving and insulation much more seriously than it has been taken so far. We managed to achieve a house-by-house conversion programme to North Sea gas; it seems quite reasonable that the country should be able to have a home insulation programme on a similar basis. We must try not only to cut people's bills but genuinely to save energy and avoid having to build more power stations, which can result only in higher bills.
People do not understand some of the basic facts and figures. I should like to put before the House their reasons for that lack of understanding as they put them to me. In five years of the previous Labour Government gas prices rose by only 33 per cent. In 2½ years of Conservative Government so far they have risen by 66 per cent., and the increase this year will in effect mean, because of compound interest, an increase of 100 per cent. in three years of Conservative Government. Under the Conservatives electricity has gone up by 73 per cent. in less than three years and home coal prices have gone up by 74 per cent. The general effect of that enormous increase in fuel prices, deliberately foisted on people by the Government as a matter of policy, is hitting people very hard.
People are baffled because our wealth of energy supplies seems to be turning out to be a curse instead of a blessing. If world oil prices rise, we are told that gas and electricity prices must go up as well. We are told that we must all suffer, and we have no benefit. Yet when oil prices are falling are gas prices cut? All that we have heard from the Government so far is that as a result of world oil prices falling there is a threat that they will not be able to cut taxes or that they will lose some revenue. Therefore, while the average householder suffers rising gas prices world oil prices can go up or down with apparently no benefit to our hard-pressed people.
The other matter that people put to me is that there appears to be no real reason why the increases must be foisted on them. The Government are deliberately taxing gas in the current financial year to the extent of £420 million, and I understand that they expect to take from the Gas Corporation £750 million in tax next year. Therefore, it is clear that the corporation does not have to increase prices if the Government do not insist on putting an extra £750 million of taxes on to gas consumers.
The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) had the temerity to suggest that gas supplies were being subsidised, when his own Government put a £750 million tax on the gas consumer. He will have a great deal of explaining to do to the ordinary householder who receives the bills.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: It will probably cost the national Exchequer that amount of money in supplementary benefits to those who will qualify for them as a result of the increase in the cost of living resulting from this tax. That is astounding when the main plank of the Government's policy is supposed to be anti-inflation measures.

Mr. Woolmer: I entirely agree. When the Government say that they are putting all their energies into getting inflation down and are trying to convince people to take

lower pay rises, to put gas prices up by 22 per cent. in one year—which means an increase of 100 per cent. in three years—is an odd way of fighting inflation.
I was making the point that in the course of the next financial year the Gas Corporation is likely to pay to the Exchequer, through the gas levy and corporation tax, petroleum revenue tax and so on, little short of £1,000 million in taxes. The Government have a choice. It is a policy decision by them whether this gas price increase is necessary. Let it not be said that the price must go up because gas is the product of a loss-making nationalised industry. We hear so often from the Conservative Benches that the nationalised industries are making huge losses, that they are making a mess of their businesses and must put up their prices to return to profit. Here is a business in effect making a profit not far short of £1½ billion. Do the Government let them use it to reduce prices? Not at all.

Mr. Eggar: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the Government should not be taxing an undertaking that uses natural resources in the southern basin of the North Sea belonging to the nation? If he is, is he therefore in favour of the abolition of petroleum revenue tax and other taxes on oil companies?

Mr. Woolmer: What I am saying is that in the middle of a recession people's living standards are being hit very hard. We have a Government who are willing to tolerate 3 million unemployed to try to bring inflation under control. One of the most crucial factors affecting the cost of living—the price of gas—is capable of being held down, and indeed reduced. The hon. Gentleman and his Government have a duty in those circumstances to ask whether it is right that the Government should take £1,000 million in tax from the Gas Corporation, instead of allowing it to use that money to hold gas prices down.
The corporation is being forced to put up gas prices. In effect, one family's tax cut will be financed by another family's gas bill increase. It is no accident that these enormous increases in taxes on gas are being imposed well before an election. The truth is that what gas consumers are paying for in the gas bills coming through the letter boxes today is the tax cuts that will lead up to the election next year. I have no doubt that the £1,000 million worth of unnecessary taxes that gas consumers are having to pay will be used to finance the election bribes at the next general election.
I have never seen people so desperately upset and worried as I have seen them to be in the past two or three weeks. Honest, hard-working people have literally been in tears because of their worry and desperation over meeting the bills. Our duty is to listen to them. To say that the Government and the Gas Corporation have no option, when profits in effect are over £1 billion, is hypocrisy. Our duty is to listen to our people and to use the option to hold down the increase. I ask the Government not to proceed with it this year. At the end of the day those householders affected will not forget, and they will not forget the Government.

Mr. John Hannam: The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) pursued arguments which, because of the short time available, I shall refrain from taking up. He omitted one important factor—the


equation which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State presented to the House of trying to assist in the creation of jobs through producing the right price structure for industry, as against an abnormally low, historically low level for the domestic consumer, resulting from the policies of the previous Government. I shall take up that matter later in my brief speech.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the third tranche of the January 1980 announcement of gas price increases of 10 per cent. above inflation per year is causing a great deal of concern among our constituents. It would be easy for any Government to adopt an easy electoral posture on such decisions and satisfy the consumer and ignore the long-term national interest by allowing gas prices to remain historically low.
Even with the present increase, the consumer will still be obtaining gas at a lower price in real terms than in 1970, whereas, following the increase and the reapportionment of costs in gas pricing, the industrial consumer at last faces the possibility of obtaining his gas at prices competitive with those charged to his overseas competitors. The Labour Party constantly argues the case for helping industry, thus creating more jobs. Here are the Government carrying out exactly that policy, and yet Labour hon. Members are cavilling.
Illusions are easy to peddle these days, especially in political terms. I found it saddening that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) the Opposition energy spokesman, for whom I have great respect, took advantage of short-term political considerations involved in the implementation of this third and final 10 per cent. increase in prices.
We are debating the announcement made in January 1980, which was then debated. It would be easy and electorally rewarding in the short term to try to satisfy the consumer at all times. That is exactly what the Opposition did during their period of office. As the hon. Member for Batley and Morley carefully announced, they held down gas prices to the domestic consumer, despite increasing losses on domestic gas supply, which resulted in the high cost of gas and the breakdown of a guaranteed supply to the industrial consumer.

Mr. Skinner: It is correct that the Labour Government intervened in the economy and held down gas prices. That was because, by and large—not all the time— they had a philosophy based on Government intervention in the economy. The hon. Gentleman has to answer this point, as he was elected on the basis of the operation of market forces and each week his right hon. Friend the Prime Minster stands at the Dispatch Box and says that the Government cannot intervene and the market must decide. Why are the Government intervening in the market to push up gas prices 100 per cent? I am talking about the hon. Gentleman's Government, and he will presumably back them once again.

Mr. Hannam: It is easy to answer that question. That is exactly what the Government are doing. They are restoring market forces to an artifically distorted situation.
In 1979 the Price Commission advised the Government to increase domestic gas prices by 30 per cent. The Government could easily have done that in one fell swoop, but they chose to stagger the increases over three years. The point that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr.

Skinner) makes, that the Government are intervening in an artifically created price structure, is valid. They are restoring market forces, as far as they can be restored, to a monopoly gas industry.
I return to the point I was making about the effect of the Labour Government's policies on the supply of industrial gas. Despite warnings in 1978 and 1979 that their policies would result in dangerous cut-offs of supply to British industry, and despite the Gas Corporation's failure to create new gas supplies for new industries, the Government continued to create a surge in demand by domestic gas users. They were taking advantage of an obviously attractive fall in gas prices when all other fuel prices were rising sharply and dramatically.
Despite a call by the Price Commission for a 30 per cent. rise in gas prices, the Labour Party decided to try to gain some electoral advantage—forlornly as it turned out, and forlornly as it is proving by continuing their policy now—so the Conservative Government had the rather unpleasant duty of trying to bring in a proper price level for domestic gas. That was done to ensure not only the long-term security of gas supply but to correct the imbalance between domestic and industrial prices.
The Government decided not to impose an immediate 30 per cent. increase but to spread it over three-years, 1980, 1981 and 1982. We are debating the final instalment of those three increases. The main difference between now and January 1980 is that we can begin to see the results of the change of policy by the Government in 1980. Whereas in 1979 domestic gas prices had dropped to 70 per cent. of their real value cost in 1970, compared with a real price increase in electricity of 118 per cent., of oil, 162 per cent. and of coal, 117 per cent., by the end of the third quarter of last year gas was still only 81 per cent. of the 1970 price, whereas electricity was 144 per cent., oil 198 per cent. and coal 132 per cent.
The price per therm has dropped from 10·61p in 1970 to 7·3p in 1980. In October 1981 it crept up to 8·38p, well below the 1970 level. Let the Opposition not accuse the Government of clobbering the domestic gas consumer with the increases. After the final 10 per cent. increase above inflation, gas prices to the domestic consumer will still be less than they were in 1970, and gas will be by far the cheapest of all domestic fuels.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have worked the figures out and had them checked by the Library. If one takes the figures for 1975, one sees that price increases for gas exceed those for other fuels. That includes the first increase this year.

Mr. Hannam: I have listened to those figures. I refute that point, because I am certain that, following the holding down of gas prices, they dropped alarmingly below the prices of other fuels. I have among my papers the figures for 1970 to 1981. In 1975 the price per therm was 8·17p and at the end of 1980 it was 7·43p. It will now rise to just above the 1975 level.
In January 1980, when the crucial decision was made by the Government we were close to major cut-offs of gas supplies to industry. One of the leading members of the Shadow Cabinet, who then became the Shadow energy spokesman—he has now become a member of the SDP—the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), when attending an energy seminar in Plymouth during the previous October, at which I was present, said:


A proper pricing policy for energy is essential and inevitable and a special scheme of help for poorer families will be needed.
That is precisely what the Government did a few months later.
At the same conference the deputy chairman of south-west gas said:
The demand for domestic gas has been intensified by artificially low prices and a substantial increase in gas prices is overdue. There should be more parity between domestic and industrial prices.
Sir Denis Rooke was reported as being so concerned about the instability of gas supplies that he considered cutting off supplies to the House of Commons if the statutory requirement to connect householders living within 25 yards of gas mains was not removed. He recognised the danger of the instability of gas supplies because of the surge of demand by the domestic consumer. I imagine that he would probably like to cut off gas supplies to the House of Commons now because of the Bill that is in Committee.
This morning I received reports from my constituency of a large housing estate in the Exwick area of Exeter that is unable to have a complete gas main supply because of a general rule being applied by South-West Gas that no extensions to existing distribution networks can be made owing to instability of supply. In other words, there is still over-demand in the domestic sector and insecurity of supply to the industrial sector. We import 20 per cent. of our gas from Norway and have not developed a new major gas field for seven years.
Because of the Government's decision in 1980, our industrial gas consumers now have a price advantage over their Continental rivals. That competitive position would not last if the final increase did not take place.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that we would have had an ample supply of gas if the gas-gathering pipe line scheme submitted by the BGC on behalf of Norway had been backed by the Government? They refused to back it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) answers, may I say that he knows that I have no authority to ask anybody to stop speaking once he starts, but we had hoped that the winding-up speeches would start at 6.30.

Mr. Hannam: I accept your admonishment, Mr. Speaker, and confess that I have given way rather too enthusiastically. If British Gas had paid the right price for gas we would have had a gas-gathering pipeline by now.
After the increase, domestic gas will still be the cheapest of all fuels and will still be hardly profitable to British Gas. The fact that much less of the weekly budget of the pensioner or worker is now going on gas shows that we are not being unfair to those lucky enough to be within reach of gas supplies.
I challenge Labour Members to dispute my contention that my right hon. Friend is pursuing a responsible energy policy that is designed to help British industry and thereby provide jobs without unjustly penalising domestic consumers. Being in Government must mean taking responsibility for unpopular decisions that are essential in the national interest. I give my full support to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We have heard that about half a dozen Conservative Members will not support the Government when the Division takes place. That proves that we were right to table the motion.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about the leave of the House?

Mr. Rees: If I require the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall ask. It seems that our visitor from Europe, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), mixes up the procedures in both places.
As I was saying, it seems that we were right to table the motion. If a group of Conservative Members intend not to support the Government on this occasion, it means that they are receiving many letters from their constituents. I know that I am receiving many letters on this issue from my constituents. However, the number of letters that we receive on any one issue does not necessarily mean that cur constituents are right. Nevertheless, there is great concern about gas prices, especially in the type of area that I represent.
Notwithstanding the argument of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), it is said when prices increase that the responsibility lies only with nationalised industries. During the debate, when I should have had other things on my mind, I recalled a recent visit with some of my hon. Friends to a Yorkshire coalmine. As I was travelling to the pit in my car I heard the Prime Minister say on the radio that we should run nationalised industries in the same way as Marks and Spencer is run.
As I crawled along a 250 yard face in a modern pit I remembered two things: first, it struck me that my mother was right to ensure that I did not follow my father into the pit; secondly, it struck me that it was a damned silly remark—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order" .] I know, Mr. Speaker, that, if that is what I thought, the House would want me to tell it so. In any event, it struck me that it was a silly remark to make. How can a pit be run as if it we re part of the retail trade? The heavy and fixed costs of most of our nationalised industries are such that it is difficult to prevent them coming forward.
It has emerged from the debate that the 100 per cent. increase in gas prices since the Government took office has not taken place to meet the wishes of the corporation. The increase has taken place at the wish of the Government. Whoever the complaints can be directed to, they cannot be directed to the chairman of the corporation, Sir Denis Rooke.
We have heard a great deal about the Price Commission's report of June 1979, which stated that domestic prices should be increased. That is held against the previous Labour Government. However, within a month of that report the Government froze domestic gas prices. There is an argument about energy prices overall and it is no good putting the blame on one Government. I do not agree with the implications that have been drawn from the speech of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) at the Plymouth seminar.
In January 1980 we heard that the Government were planning for three years. Does that mean that nothing will happen in a year's time? Some of my hon. Friends have been uncharitable enough to say that as next year is the run-up to a general election it will be surprising, whatever the objectivity of the Government's policy, if the Treasury


does not say "It does not matter very much this year. Let it ride this year. It is the run-up to the election. Let people forget what we have done in the previous year or two."
I shall take up some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). I understand from the tape that the dollar price of oil has fallen today by $4. The spot price is lower than the dollar price. That means that it will not be long before the dollar price of oil falls.

Mr. Lawson: No.

Mr. Rees: The Secretary of State says "No". He is a brave man.

Mr. Lawson: It does not follow.

Mr. Rees: That is a different matter. It does not follow automatically but it may well happen. The fact remains that a fall in price of $4 is considerable. I do not want to anticipate the effect that this will have on budgetary policy but it will have an effect on energy pricing policy. The industrial price of gas might well fall if the pricing link continues. There will be an effect on the coal industry. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has said, coal will still have a considerable cost advantage even when the price of oil falls by $4 a barrel.
It is important that we have the right overall policy, and in this respect the Government have made a profound mistake. I am not saying that gas prices should not have increased at all in the past three years. It would be foolish to say that. Our motion does not advance that argument. However, to increase gas prices by 100 per cent. at a time of inflation and depression is an act of folly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) knows, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer)—I am closer to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley because our constituencies abut, but the problems are the same—of the distress that the price increases have caused in the country. I represent a low-wage area, and on Saturday, when I visit my constituency, many of my people will tell me about the problems that they face in meeting their gas and eletricity bills. There is great concern about the standing charge. It is easy enough for those of us who read our bills and pay them with a bit of a curse, but there are many who read them and shed tears. I have in mind widows, for example. I know that there is a joke in this place at Budget time about the one-eyed and one-legged widows that hon. Members design to show who suffers most, but there is a problem with energy pricing and the Government's scheme is deficient. I am glad that it helps those in receipt of supplementary benefit but those who suffer are pensioners who are not in receipt of supplementary benefit, those in low income groups and one-parent families.
Something must be done about the standing charge. The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) produced some novel ideas. Most of my constituents would prefer to pay the costs that properly fall on the standing charge weekly throughout the year, or quarterly. They do not want to be faced with a lump sum at the beginning of the year. The old person who stays with a son or daughter finds it difficult, when he or she returns to his or her home,

to understand a bill that contains a standing charge that is greater than the cost of the gas or electricity that has been consumed.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) made a constructive and interesting speech. He reported allegations that have been made about the use of resources by the gas board in his area. He was generous enough to say that in general the corporation is highly efficient. However, he reported that his constituents have alleged that numerous corporation vans have been flying around his constituency. They allege that there are too many of them and that they seem to sit in laybys while corporation employees have a whiff and a puff, as it were.
I hope that these serious charges are examined. They are made against members of the General and Municipal Workers Union, a union to which I belong. By all means make the allegations, but the allegations had better stand up when they are investigated. The allegations were made to the hon. Member for Chichester and he was right to raise them in the House. However, an investigation must take place to ensure that they are not part of the sweeping allegations that are made, for example, about employees sleeping in factories, along with all the usual stories that we hear. It is important that those aspects are considered.
I turn now to the privatisation of customer services. I invariably call the chap round the corner to repair electrical faults. The last thing I should ever do would be to call a relatively untrained man to carry out gas maintenance. Gas fittings require high safety standards. The Government understand that because they are about to establish a safety code. That is the result of their policy of shutting the showrooms. Gas is different from electricity in that respect. The Department of Trade did not understand that when it advanced this scheme.

Mr. Stoddart: Speaking as a member of the electricians' trade union, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that electricity is as dangerous as gas and that he should always employ a qualified electrician.

Mr. Rees: I always call qualified electricians and trained people from the Gas Corporation. That is the difference. Gas involves safety factors of a more general nature:
The Secretary of State's speech was almost predictable. We both serve on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill in Committee and are becoming fed up to the back teeth listening to each other. There is no Government subsidy to the Gas Corporation. There may be a subsidy within the Gas Corporation's accounts, with costs applied one way or the other, but the idea that the corporation is subsidised by anybody is false. Yet that was the impression that was given.
We have heard little about depletion policy. The hon. Member for Melton gave his view of the economy. To reinforce his argument, he mentioned Bishop Latimer, for whom I have much regard and whose painting hangs in the Central Lobby.

Mr. Lawson: He was burned as a heretic.

Mr. Latham: A Protestant martyr.

Mr. Rees: If he was burned as a heretic, that was hard luck. That just proves that if one has a good point, one should use it at the beginning, not the end. The hon. Member for Melton made a good speech, whether


heretical or not. There are many heretics on the Opposition Benches. Let us have more and defeat the Government tonight.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I am delighted to begin on that excellent last note. I have not left the Chamber throughout the debate. As so often in many debates over the past few years, I was struck by how often, whichever party has been in office, the nation has suffered by the inability of many of us to face reality.
Much of the debate which has flown back and forth across the Chamber has failed to face many of the harsh truths to which Britain must reconcile itself. I shall attempt to be factual, because it might help the tenor and nature of the debate.
The truth has not changed. It was well expressed in 1978 in the classic Green Paper on energy policy. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), in that Green Paper, said:
Natural gas is a high quality finite resource and its price must reflect this fact. If it is sold too cheaply, consumers will have no incentive to use it efficiently. In these circumstances the industry's prices need to be related to the expected cost of future supplies, rather than its historic cost".
Those were wise words at that time and, as I said, the truth has not changed.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) asked: what happened? It was the Labour Government's failure to act on their own theoritical beliefs that produced the neglect and mess that the Government inherited and had to try to sort out.
I respect the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) and his views and his company. We cannot refuse to face, handle and sort out problems caused by a previous Government's neglect. We cannot leave the matter as it is. We must tackle it.
However, the Opposition's neglect, when in Government, was compounded by the sense of hypocrisy that has surrounded much of the debate. They ignore their own past beliefs and statements expressed in Government. In such a sensitive area as this—all hon. Members' constituents are conscious of the enormous burdens and problems—the worst thing we can do is to pander falsely to hopes and feed on the fears of those who suffer more than hon. Members.

Mr. Stoddart: rose—

Mr. Moore: I shall give way in a moment. I wish to place some facts on the record.
What are the realities that the Government had the courage to face and tackle? The first reality ought to be put clearly and concisely on the record. The domestic side was not and still is not meeting the cost of supplies.

Mr. Stoddart: rose—

Mr. Moore: I shall give way later. First, I want to tackle the key point of the cost of supplies on the domestic side, let alone the increasing cost of future supplies to the industrial and commercial side.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South was right in suggesting that there was no subsidy to the industry. The subsidy was within the industry. Industrial and commercial users were subsidising domestic consumers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), in a courageous speech, asked whether price

increases at this stage were justified. The facts about costs ought to be made clear. Two essential costs are interconnected: the cost of transmission, supply and handling—I am referring solely to the domestic side of the industry, because that is what the Opposition's motion is about—and the cost of the product.
The Price Commission—I am not referring to statistics issued by the Government or the British Gas Corporation—analysed the figures thoroughly in 1979. Its figures, updated to today, produced 17p per therm for bringing domestic gas into the houses privileged to have it. One must add to that figure the average cost, for example, of Norwegian supplies, and 23 per cent. or more is coming across that median line. We are not self-sufficient in this area. That amounts to 37p per therm on the basic marginal cost from that area of supply. I remember the words of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East when he referred to future costs and supplies. I have here my gas bill. I am sure that all hon. Members have considered their bills. The therm cost on my present bill is 27·2p. As we know, that is to increase in April and October. That relates to 37p per therm.

Mr. Stoddart: rose—

Mr. Moore: I shall finish this point before giving way. Beyond the Norwegian costs, we must consider the area from the northern basin. The beach costs under negotiated contracts today are about 16p per therm. Added to the 17p, we are talking about 33p a therm. These are the realities with which the British Gas Corporation and everybody else must be concerned.

Mr. Stoddart: I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. Irrespective of who made the statement about current cost accounting and long run marginal costs—I do not know whether the Government are becoming Bennites—if all private industry used the same criteria, would not the Government's inflationary policy be split asunder and prices race ahead? How on earth does the Minister expect industry, which is based on a simple profit motive and usually historic cost accounting, as well as the domestic consumer to pay for long run marginal costing in the public industries? That is not possible.

Mr. Moore: I was unwise to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I was talking not about long-run marginal costing but about the real cost of supplies and the specific statements of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East.
I mentioned the costs of supply. It was clear to the Government when they came to office that there was an exploding demand, quite understandably, for a product selling below the market price. I do not blame the corporation, which had a statutory obligation to increase supplies to that loss-making sector of the market. That meant unsatisfied industrial demand and a crucial change that those who know the problems of development in the North Sea will recognise. It was a crucial change in the mix of supplies that were coming on to the domestic and industrial markets.
In 1975, 98 per cent. of our gas came from the southern basin. Estimates for this year show that only 58 per cent. will come from the southern basin, 19 per cent. will come from the northern basin and 23 per cent. from across the median line. It was clear that action was needed. However, if I may suggest it to my hon. Friend the


Member for Melton, the need was not for action to open up a completely free market place, but for quite the reverse, because that would have led to a massive increase in prices, far beyond those that the Government have tried to introduce.
The previous Administration would have agreed theoretically, but we had to act. The only question was how. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South and others have suggested that we acted in an electioneering spirit. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said from a sedentary position "Is that the kind of thing that gains votes?" I assume that the sedentary interruptions are designed to suggest electioneering now, but hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that the policy was introduced and approved by the House in January 1980, which is a considerable time in advance of any prospect of a general election. A three-year policy was introduced in January 1980.
Essentially, the Government had to act. They tried to introduce the policy over three years, as opposed to one year, which may have been more courageous or more foolish.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Minister said at least six times that the position facing the Government when they came to office was obvious. If it was so obvious, why did they freeze gas prices in 1979, when they took office, instead of increasing them?

Mr. Moore: Upon taking office, it is necessary to examine the books to try to understand what has happened. I have noticed the sort of support that we get from Opposition Members for our three-year policy. What might they have done?
The second reality, beyond the reality of the cost of gas to the domestic consumer, is that gas today is cheaper in real terms than in 1970. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) legitimately said that we should give our constituents the facts. I suggest that the facts make an impact on individuals. I am aware that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have received difficult letters from their constituents. The impact on individuals and families is valid and relevant. However, we must separate the facts from the sort of hysteria that, in part, we have heard in the debate.
The first relevant fact is that the average family with central heating has had its expenditure on gas as a proportion of its income reduced from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. from 1968 until now. The second fact concerns the pensioner couple, with whom we are all legitimately concerned. Of course I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) about standing charges. He raised that point in his usual way—constructively—to try to help the long-term needs of pensioners. The married pensioner couple living only on their pension, with a cooker and a gas fire, were spending 10 per cent. of their income on their gas supply in 1968. Happily, whatever the difficulties of facing the truth, today that percentage has more than halved. They now pay 4 per cent. of their income. However difficult it may be, it is good that we all recognise that that has been reduced. We should all welcome it, however difficult it is for them to pay.
The third fact is that gas today is 17 per cent. cheaper in real terms than in 1970—the era of cheap energy. That

is in marked contrast to other fuels which people must take because they cannot be supplied with gas. It is gratifying to find out, in the face of the courageous decisions that the Government have had to take during the past two years, that disconnections have decreased radically. They are down 30 per cent. in the nine months of last year to 31 December. Despite the harsh weather in January, in that month they decreased by 23 per cent. Clearly, that has something to do with the way in which the Government have tried to introduce reality during a three-year period and to add a benefit package of over £250 million in real terms. That is the relevance of real care in trying to help those in need.
Excellent contributions were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) and Exeter (Mr. Hannam), who all raised the problem of containing and controlling the efficiency of the nationalised industries. I remind them that the Government made provision for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission regularly to investigate the efficiency of nationalised industries. The CEGB has recently been examined under those powers. I also remind my hon. Friends about the Government's financial targets and cash limits. They are designed to reflect the need to maintain pressure for increasing efficiency and to impose the proper commercial disciplines for effective cost control. In the case of the gas industry, we have agreed that the corporation should aim to reduce its unit costs, excluding the cost of gas purchase, by 5 per cent. in real terms by 1982–83. I know that my hon. Friends will welcome that demanding aim in such difficult times.
For those hon. Members who were not privileged to hear the full debate, I can report that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter made an excellent speech. It was the most devastating analysis in the debate about the realities of the way in which we are trying to ensure, through our policies, that employment is made available in industry and commerce through the rational pricing of gas. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn), again in an excellent speech, asked about the method of advising on the proposed increases. I must remind him that the industries are obliged by statute to inform the national consumer council about tariff proposals, so that it, in turn, may make representations about them to the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford made many excellent points in his speech, although I did not agree with all of his conclusions. He wondered about the reduction in industrial gas prices. The 1 April increase will bring to an end the ridiculous position whereby the running rate on the domestic credit tariff has been below the typical price for a firm contract industrial supply, although it costs more to supply the domestic consumer than the industrial consumer. The two charges will then be almost identical. The 1 October increase will complete the process of establishing a sensible relationship between the two markets as domestic prices move slightly ahead of industrial prices for the first time in some years.
Even with the current soft oil prices I must draw the attention of Labour Members and that of some of my hon. Friends to the fact that because we were successul in ensuring a freeze in industrial gas prices there was a great deal of head room between the industrial gas price and the equivalent gasoil price. Even today, firm gases are at 30p plus per therm and gasoil is at 45–47p per therm.
The gas levy was mentioned, with a great deal of confusion and muddle by so many hon. Members. This was nothing other than a way of ensuring that the windfall profits of gas are given to the nation, not to those privileged to have a gas supply, and, more specifically, that 35 per cent. of the nation that is privileged to have gas central heating.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West and many other hon. Members raised the difficult problem of standing charges. The sum of £500 million is roughly the revenue cost incurred by standing charges. I am conscious of many of the difficulties raised, but I point out to hon. Members on both sides of the House that, while the Government are in the process of looking at this problem, standing charges reflect the overhead costs of making a supply available. These are the real costs incurred by the industry, regardless of customers' consumption.
The Government and the National Gas Consumers Council have, like the previous Labour Government, endorsed the principle of standing charges. All previous studies, including "Energy Tariffs and the Poor" which was produced when the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was Secretary of State for Energy, concluded that tariff restructuring, including measures on standing charges, is not a sensible way of using resources to help the poor. There are genuine and real problems, and I acknowledge the suggestions by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North and will examine them with sympathy, care and understanding.
In conclusion, I can do no better than quote again, for the benefit of those who were not here earlier, the wise views of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, when he had the responsibility for our nation's energy policies. He said:
Natural gas is a high quality finite resource and its price must reflect this fact. If it is sold too cheaply consumers will have no incentive to use it efficiently.
Wise truths can be repeated more than once—those were wise words.
Unlike the Opposition, the Government have had the courage to match their words with deeds and the courage to face reality, however painful. As we come to the end of this period of adjustment, we begin to see, in industry and commerce, the first competitive gas price advantages flowing from our determination to face that reality. I urge my hon. Friends and all other hon. Members to support the Government amendment and reject this contemptible Opposition motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 301.

Division No. 80]
[7.03 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Booth royd, Miss 0Betty


Adams,Allen
Bottomley, RtHonA.(M'b'ro)


Allaun, Frank
Bradley,Tom


Anderson,Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)


Ashton,Joe
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)


Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Buchan,Norman


Barnett,Guy(Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp; P)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel(H'wd)
Campbell,Ian


Beith,A.J.
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cant, R. B.


Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Carmichael.Neil


Bidwell,Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Booth, RtHonAlbert
Cartwright.John





Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Janner,HonGreville


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Jay, RtHon Douglas


Cohen,Stanley
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Conlan,Bernard
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cook, Robin F.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Kaufman, RtHon Gerald


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Kerr, Russell


Cranborne, Viscount
Kilfedder, James A.


Crowther,Stan
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cryer,Bob
Kinnock,Neil


Cunningham, DrJ.(W'h'n)
Lambie, David


Dalyell,Tam
Lamborn,Harry


Davidson,Arthur
Lamond,James


Davies, RtHon Denzil (L'lli)
Leadbitter,Ted


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leighton,Ronald


Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)
Lewis, Arthur (N'hamNW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Litherland, Robert


Dewar,Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dixon, Donald
Lyon,Alexander(York)


Dobson,Frank
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Dormand,Jack
McCartney,Hugh


Douglas,Dick
McDonald, DrOonagh


Douglas-Mann,Bruce
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dubs,Alfred
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKelvey,William


Dunn, James A.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dunnett,Jack
McMahon,Andrew


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McNally,Thomas


Eadie,Alex
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
McTaggart,Robert


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
McWilliam,John


Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)
Marks, Kenneth


Ellis,Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall,D(G'gowS'ton)


English,Michael
Marshall,DrEdmund (Goole)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)


Evans, John (Newton)
Martin,M(G'gowS'burn)


Ewing,Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


FauIds, Andrew
Maxton,John


Field,Frank
Maynard, MissJoan


Fitch,Alan
Meacher,Michael


Fitt,Gerard
Mellish, RtHon Robert


Flannery, Martin
Mikardo,Ian


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Millan,RtHonBruce


Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby)


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Forrester,John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Morton,George


Freeson, RtHon Reginald
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Freud,Clement
Mulley, RtHon Frederick


Garrett, John (NorwichS)
Newens, Stanley


George,Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ogden,Eric


Graham, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael


Grant,George(Morpeth)
O'Neill,Martin


Grant, John (IslingtonC)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grlmond, RtHonJ.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Palmer,Arthur


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Park,George


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Parker,john


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parry, Robert


Haynes, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Penhaligon,David


Heffer, EricS.
Pitt, William Henry


Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Holland.S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Price, C. (Lewlsham W)


HomeRobertson,John
Race, Reg


Homewood,William
Radice,Giles


Horam,John
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Howells,Geraint
Richardson,Jo


Hoyle,Douglas
Roberts,Albert(Normanton)


Huckfield,Les
Roberts,Allan(Bootle)


Hughes,Mark(Durham)
Roberts, Ernest (HackneyN)


Hughes, Robert (AberdeenN)
Roberts,Gwilym(Cannock)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robertson,George






Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)


Rodgers, RtHonWilliam
Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)


Rooker, J. W.
Tilley,John


Roper,John
Tinn,James


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Torney,Tom


Rowlands,Ted
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ryman,John
Wainwright,E. (DearneV)


Sever, John
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Sheerman, Barry
Watkins, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Weetch,Ken


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wellbeloved,James


Short, Mrs Renée
Welsh,Michael


Silverman,Julius
White, J.(G'gowPollok)


Skinner,Dennis
Whitehead, Phillip


Smith,Cyril (Rochdale)
Whitlock.William


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Wigley, Dafydd


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Soley,Clive
Wilson, RtHonSirH.(H'ton)


Spriggs, Leslie
Winnick,David


Stallard,A.W.
Woodall,Alec


Steel, Rt Hon David
Woolmer,Kenneth


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Wrigglesworth,Ian


Stoddart, David
Wright,Sheila


Stott, Roger
Young, David (BoltonE)


Strang, Gavin



Straw,Jack
Tellers for the Ayes:


Summerskill,HonDrShirley
Mr. James Hamilton and


Thomas,Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Thomas,Jeffrey (Abertillery)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Aitken,Jonathan
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Alexander,Richard
Chapman,Sydney


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Churchill,W.S.


Amery, RtHon Julian
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Ancram,Michael
Clark, Sir W. (CroydonS)


Arnold,Tom
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Aspinwall,Jack
Clegg, Sir Walter


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Cockeram,Eric


Atkins,Robert(PrestonN)
Cope,John


Atkinson, David(B'm'th,E)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Corrie,John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Costain,SirAlbert


Banks,Robert
Cranborne,Viscount


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Critchley,Julian


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Crouch,David


Benyon,Thomas(A 'don)
Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)


Benyon,W. (Buckingham)
Dorrell,Stephen


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.


Bevan,DavidGilroy
Dover,Denshore


Biffen, Rt Hon John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)


Blackburn,John
Durant,Tony


Blaker,Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Body,Richard
Edwards, RtHon N. (P'broke)


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Eggar,Tim


Boscawen,HonRobert
Elliott,SirWilliam


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Emery, Sir Peter


Boyson,DrRhodes
Eyre,Reginald


Braine,SirBernard
Fairbairn,Nicholas


Bright,Graham
Fairgrieve,SirRussell


Brinton,Tim
Faith, MrsSheila


Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon
Farr,John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fell,SirAnthony


Brotherton,Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp; Sc'n)
Finsberg,Geoffrey


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Fisher,SirNigel


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon.A.
Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles


Buck,Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Budgen,Nick
Forman, Nigel


Bulmer,Esmond
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Burden,SirFrederick
Fox, Marcus


Butcher,John
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Butler, Hon Adam
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Fry, Peter


Carlisle, John (LutonWest)
Gardiner,George(Reigate)


Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardner, Edward (SFylde)


Carlisle, RtHon M.(R'c'n)
Garel-Jones,Tristan





Gilmour, RtHonSir Ian
Meyer, SirAnthony


Glyn, DrAlan
Miller,Hal(B'grove)


Goodhart,SirPhilip
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Goodhew,SirVictor
Miscampbell,Norman


Goodlad,Alastair
Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)


Gow, Ian
Moate,Roger


Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)
Monro,SirHector


Greenway, Harry
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths,PeterPortsm'thN)
Moore,John


Grist, Ian
Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)


Grylls,Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Murphy,Christopher


Hampson,DrKeith
Myles, David


Hannam,John
Neale,Gerrard


Haselhurst,Alan
Needham, Richard


Hastings,Stephen
Nelson,Anthony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neubert,Michael


Hawksley,Warren
Newton,Tony


Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton,Tom


Heddle,John
Nott, Rt Hon John


Henderson,Barry
Onslow,Cranley


Heseltine,Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hicks,Robert
Osborn,John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hill,James
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hooson,Tom
Parris, Matthew


Hordern, Peter
Patten,Christopher(Bath)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patten, John(Oxford)


Howell, RtHonD.(G'ldf'd)
Pattie,Geoffrey


Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Percival,Sir lan


Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Hurd.Rt Hon Douglas
Pollock,Alexander


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Porter,Barry


Jenkin,Rt Hon Patrick
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jessel, Toby
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jopling,Rt Hon Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raison,Rt Hon Timothy


Kaberry,SirDonald
Rathbone,Tim


Kellett-Bowman,MrsElaine
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Kimball,SirMarcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


King, Rt Hon Tom
Renton,Tim


Kitson,SirTimothy
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight,MrsJill
Rhys Williams, SirBrandon


Knox, David
Ridley,HonNicholas


Lang, Ian
Ridsdale,SirJulian


Langford-Holt,SirJohn
Rifkind,Malcolm


Lawrence,Ivan
Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)


Lawson,Rt Hon Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lee, John
Rossi, Hugh


LeMarchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter


Lennox-Boyd,HonMark
Royle,SirAnthony


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Sainsbury,HonTimothy


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Loveridge,John
Scott,Nicholas


Luce,Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell,Nicholas
Shaw ,Michael(Scarborough)


McCrindle,Robert
Shelton,William(Streatham)


Macfarlane,Neil
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


MacGregor,John
Shepherd,Richard


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shersby,Michael


Macmillan,Rt Hon M.
Silvester,Fred


McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Madel, David
Smith,Dudley


Major,John
Speed, Keith


Marlow,Antony
Speller,Tony


Marshall,Michael(Arundel)
Spence,John


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Sproat,Iain


Mawby, Ray
Squire,Robin


Mawhinney,DrBrian
Stanbrook,Ivor


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley,John


Mayhew,Patrick
Steen,Anthony


Mellor,David
Stevens,Martin






Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Stokes,John
Wall,SirPatrick


StradlingThomas.J.
Waller, Gary


Tapsell, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)
Ward, John


Tebbit, RtHon Norman
Warren,Kenneth


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watson,John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wells.John(Maidstone)


Thompson,Donald
Wheeler,John


Thorne.Neil(IlfordSouth)
Whitelaw, RtHon William


Thornton,Malcolm
Whitney,Raymond


Townend,John (Bridlington)
Wickenden, Keith


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Wiggin,Jerry


Trippier,David
Wilkinson,John


Trotter,Neville
Williams,D.(Montgomery)


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wolfson,Mark


Vaughan, DrGerard
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


Viggers,Peter
Younger, RtHon George


Waddington, David



Wakeham,John
Tellers for the Noes:


Waldegrave,HonWilliam
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House having endorsed on 29th January 1980 the Government's decision to tackle, over a three-year period, the serious under-pricing of domestic gas at industry's expense, recognises the need to complete that process this year; welcomes the relief which has been possible in consequence through lower real industrial gas prices; and supports the Government in making available more resources than ever before helping the needy with their fuel bills.

Central America

Mr. Denis Healey: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its concern about the deteriorating situation in Central America, deplores the decision of Her Majesty's Government, contrary to the views of Canada and the countries of Western Europe, to send observers to the elections to be held in El Salvador on 28th March, and calls on Her Majesty's Government to support the proposal of the Government of Mexico for a negotiated settlement of the civil war in El Salvador.
We do not often debate the affairs of the Caribbean basin these days, but it is worth recalling that 20 years ago the Cuban missile crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. What is happening now in Central America may present less urgent dangers, but in some circumstances it could prove almost as disturbing in it s long-term consequences.
The House knows that Central America suffers from grinding poverty as a result of centuries of colonial exploitation and misgovernment by a parasitic ruling class which handed the economy over to foreign companies which condemned the area to dependence on a few crops, whose price was highly vulnerable to events in the outside world. Last week, President Reagan pointed out that to buy the same barrel of oil they have to sell five times more coffee today than they did five years ago.
In recent years, besides these long-standing economic problems and partly as a result of them, there has been a tidal wave of revolutionary feeling against the military dictatorships which rule most of the countries in the area.. The revolution was successful in Cuba and Nicaragua, but so far it has been suppressed with appalling brutality in Guatemala and El Salvador. A country such as Costa Rica, which has just had a peaceful transfer of power in a free election, is, I fear, an exception to the rule.
I do not need to describe the appalling atrocities which have taken place in these countries in recent years. We have supped full of horrors on British television. In addition to the official forces of Government, death squads operate on a large scale in Guatemala and El Salvador. I am sorry to say that the exiled supporters of the ex-dictators are allowed to train their private armies publicly on American soil in Florida and Texas.
In El Salvador, over 30,000 people have died in the past two years as a result of the fighting—that is, about 400,000 for a country the size of Britain. Many of them were tortured and mutilated before being shot or hacked to death by the death squads. The Catholic Archbishop of El Salvador was shot while celebrating mass in March 1980, and those who went to a service in his honour were mowed down by rifle fire in front of the cathedral.
The Reagan Administration recognises that there is an economic factor behind these appalling events, although the programme that the President announced last week does little more than make good cuts in lending by the Inter-American Bank and the World Bank which are due to a reduction in America's contribution to them. Moreover, many of the proposals that the President made last week depend upon Congressional decisions, which cannot be taken for granted. The President appears to see the political revolution in the area simply as the product of a conspiracy by the Soviet Union and Cuba, and forgets that the revolution in El Salvador is at least 50 years old.
Both the President and Secretary Haig see the possible victory of the guerrillas as a threat to their vital strategic


interests, particularly in the Panama Canal. Therefore, he has given large-scale military aid to the Government of El Salvador, and is now attempting to destabilise the Government of Nicaragua, as his predecessor succeeded in destabilising the Government of Chile some years ago.
I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will answer two questions. First, is it true, as widely reported, that the Central Intelligence Agency has been given $19 million by the American Administration for destabilising the regime in Nicaragua? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there is no truth in the reports which have been widely spread on American television that Her Majesty's Government are involved in some way in this operation of subversion?
So far, no American fighting troops have been sent to El Salvador. That is not surprising because opinion polls show that 89 per cent. of the American population would be against their despatch, but there has been talk of the Governments of Argentina, Chile and Paraguay providing troops not only to train but to fight in El Salvador in support of the junta.
Although the Government forces in El Salvador outnumber the guerrillas by three to one, according to Government figures, they have suffered three times as many casualties during the last two years. Despite increasing American military aid, there is no prospect of the Government winning the civil war. Equally, there is no chance of the guerrillas winning the civil war so long as America stands behind the Government. Therefore, we face the sombre prospect of a continuing civil war inflicting appalling suffering on the people of El Salvador, ruining its economy and polarising political feeling.
Many Governments outside Central America have felt this strongly for over a year. The House will recall that the Socialist International proposed negotiations to end the fighting. It had support of several European Governments whose parties were members of the Socialist International. The Social Democratic Party in El Salvador, which is part of the guerrilla movement, has welcomed those proposals, and has declared its readiness on behalf of the movement to take part in such negotiations.
Last August the Governments of Mexico and France formally recognised the guerrilla forces as a valid partner in such negotiations, but the most comprehensive proposals were those made last week by the President of Mexico who was speaking in Managua, the capital of Nicaragua. First, he proposed that he should be allowed to use his good offices to promote negotiations between the Government and the guerrilla forces in El Salvador. Secondly, he proposed that there should be international support for negotiations between the United States and Nicaragua, and between the United States and Cuba, in the hope of reducing the current conflict which he believes—I think rightly—is based to some extent on a genuine misunderstanding by each of the other's motives.
In making those proposals last week, the President of Mexico expressed several opinions that I believe will be widely shared in the House. He said that if there were no negotiations the United States might find itself dragged into direct military action in El Salvador, Nicaragua or even Cuba. He said that that would be a "gigantic historical error" bringing about a conflict of "unthinkable proportions" and provoking a

continental convulsion and a resurgence of profound anti-American sentiments among the best men of all of Latin America.
Those opinions should not and cannot be ignored. They were expressed by the President of a country that has excellent relations with the United States. He has much better knowledge of what is going on in that area than people sitting several thousand miles away in Washington.
I am sure that the President was right in what he said. I do not believe that it is anti-American to say so because the views that he expressed are widely held in the United States by congressmen, senators of both parties and by the ambassador to El Salvador, who served there under the Carter Administration.
It was a serious blunder that President Reagan totally ignored President Lopez Portillo's speech when he spoke to the Organisation of American States a day or two later in an address that President Lopez Portillo described in Le Monde today as diminishing the chances of peace in El Salvador.
It is bewildering to me that President Reagan ignored that important speech by the Mexican President, because in the same address President Reagan said that he wanted to develop a new North American accord among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, approaching them
as a friend seeking their ideas, and their suggestions as to how we can become better neighbours.
The American Administration could not have had clearer or more well-meant suggestions than those offered by the Mexican President a couple of days earlier. I fail to understand how President Reagan could have insulted the Mexican President by failing to say anything about his proposals. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will tell us exactly what Her Majesty's Government think about those proposals.
I suspect that the reason why the American Administration ignored the proposals by the Mexican President was that they had committed themselves some time ago as being in favour of a macabre ritual of elections in El Salvador, which will take place in a few weeks' time on 28 March. Surely Her Majesty's Government do not believe that those elections can conceivably produce a valid result or that they can do anything except make the solution of the problem more difficult. In the first place there is no election register in El Salvador. At least half a million people are living away from their homes either in refugee camps inside the country or as refugees in neighbouring countries.
Candidates for the opposition parties all figure on various death lists produced by the Government forces and are bound to be shot if they campaign in public. When someone pointed that out to the American ambassador in San Salvador, he was told that those members of opposition parties could campaign from outside the country. It is ridiculous to imagine that an election carried out in those circumstances, which are familiar to Her Majesty's Government, can produce a valid result. There is no freedom of movement in that country, as was said in an interesting report by an emissary from Oxfam who earned his spurs doing a similar report in Kampuchea not long ago.
There is no guarantee that, if the result is unfavourable to the military junta, it will not be over-ruled. That is like the election result that is said to have given Mr. Duarte a majority in 1970, and which was immediately suppressed by the authorities. The best that the election could produce


would be to confirm the present junta in power, but it cannot in any circumstances legitimise the present junta because the elections will not be free. The elections cannot possibly produce a result which is representative of the views of the people of El Salvador.
There is a real risk that the elections will make the problem far more difficult by putting the extreme Right wing in power—perhaps by producing Major D'Aubuisson, who is said to have been responsible for the murder of the archbishop, as the next leader of the Government in El Salvador.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman and, through him, the American Administration, that it is dangerous to base Government policy on an assumption that an election in a foreign country will go the way one would like it to go. The right hon. Gentleman and the American Government experienced that recently in a country in the Middle East.
I cannot understand why, instead of supporting the Mexican initiative which is supported by the Governments of France, Germany and Italy, and is attracting growing support in Latin America, her Majesty's Government should have chosen to separate themselves from the rest of Europe, and all of America's other allies in NATO, by sending a team of observers whose only conceivable purpose can be to legitimise the elections, yet which cannot possibly succeed in that objective. Since the elections are less than four weeks away, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us this evening who these paragons will be. Will they speak Spanish? Do they know Latin America? Do they know anything about election procedure?
It is difficult to understand why the Government have associated themselves with this shabby facade. I understand that 60 Governments have been approached by the Government of El Salvador to send observers to the elections. Apart from Britain and the United States, only six have so far accepted. They include the Governments of Argentina and Uruguay, who can hardly be considered good judges of the freedom of elections.
I cannot help feeling that the only reason for sending observers is that these Governments wish to curry favour with the Americans at a delicate moment in the Trident missile negotiations. There can be no other reason. We have been told that the Americans are prepared to make concessions on Trident provided we support them on matters which are considered to be of current defence interest. If that is not the reason I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will inform us what is because so far neither he, nor the Foreign Secretary, has said a word to justify sending observers. So far as I know, they have not tried to justify the decision in discussions with their colleagues in Cabinet.
A day or so after the news that we were sending observers to the elections in El Salvador was sneaked out—in a written answer on a Friday—The Times reported that the Government might not, after all, send observers. The report said that the Government might decide that the observers would not have freedom of movement and that their safety could not be guaranteed. The House is aware that the Canadian Government, having initially decided to send observers, changed their mind.
The Government are in a mess in this respect. The American Secretary of State has already described his British colleague as a "duplicitous" unparliamentary expression. The Mayor of New York has described the Foreign Secretary as a "schmuck". Nothing would do

more to reinforce the unfortunate impression created by the Foreign Secretary in the United States than a wobble on this issue at this late stage.
I know, as the House knows, that our influence in that part of the world is perforce limited. It is therefore all the more important that we use it for the best. We should be co-ordinating our policy towards Central America with our friends in Europe and in North America, with Canada and Mexico, who share our views, instead of acting as President Reagan's poodle. We do no real service to the American people in pandering to these illusions. America's present policy offers no prospect of success but only the certainty of a continuing civil war accompanied by all the sickening atrocities of which we read every day and which we see on our television screens. The only conceivable way by which that prospect could be avoided, in the sense that President Reagan wants, would be by committing American forces directly to intervention in a new Vietnam. That, of course, would be the ultimate folly.
America will have to move towards a negotiated settlement of the war in El Salvador. The longer it delays moving, the more difficult it will be to make negotiations a success. Opinion is bound to polarise at the two extremes so long as the fighting and the suffering continue. All hon. Members know that the present leaders of the American Administration are obsessed by the danger of revolution. That is odd, because the United States is a country born of revolution. Indeed, the Daughters of the American Revolution are now the fiercest protagonists of extreme conservatism in the United States. This is not an unfamiliar experience in the world. Mexico itself was born much more recently of revolution. Yet Mexico has been singled out by President Reagan as one of his two main partners in the hemisphere. The other is Canada.
I sometimes think, looking back on the post-war years, that the most tragic error in Western policy was perhaps the failure of America and Britain—they were the only two powers that mattered at the time—to respond to the approaches of the new Communist rulers of China in the late 1940s. That failure has been well documented recently in an impressive book by Mrs. Tuchman. If the response had been made at that time, the world could have been spared 30 years of war in the Far East, including the war in Korea, the emergency in Malaya and the tragedy in Vietnam.
The West must not make the same mistake again in Central America. A revolutionary El Salvador, Nicaragua and even Cuba may respond if they are given the chance. If they are given no chance, there is no chance of their responding: they are bound to move further into the Soviet embrace. It is worth recalling that it was a Republican President elected on an anti-Communist platform who finally succeeded in establishing good relations with Communist China over 10 years ago. It is by no means impossible for another Republican President, also elected on an anti-Communist platform, to do the same in Central America. But there is no chance that this can happen so long as those of the President's friends who should be telling him honestly what they think refrain from doing so for some reason or other and confirm him in his folly.
Her Majesty's Government's failure to tell the Americans what they really think about what is happening in Central America is the reason why we have put down the motion and why we shall vote for it tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Before I call the Lord Privy Seal, I should say that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House expresses its concern about the situation in parts of Central America, endorses the efforts of Her Majesty's Government's to encourage democracy and stability in the region, welcomes the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government and this House to inform themselves about developments, and supports Her Majesty's Government intention to help achieve a just and lasting end to the fighting in El Salvador.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) predictably spent most of his speech talking about those countries in Central America where there is fighting and oppression, where the regimes in power have no democratic legitimacy and rely only on force, and where human rights as we understand them have little place. He briefly touched on other countries in the region. I am glad that he did because the opening phrase of the motion that he moved
That this House expresses its concern about the deteriorating situation in Central America,
implies that it is the Opposition's view that there is no difference between one country and another in the whole region, that everywhere the situation is going from bad to worse. That is simply not the case.
It is essential to remind hon. Members that, contrary to what some would have us believe, democracy and stability flourish in some parts of the region. It has been the policy of successive British Governments, the Labour Government as much as the present one, to encourage the growth of democracy and to support the institutions of fair and impartial justice wherever we can. Not least our efforts have borne fruit in one country—Belize. For more than 200 years we worked to develop democratic and judicial institutions in that country and when finally last year we were able to grant independence to Belize the institutions we left were well founded. They continue to flourish.
In Costa Rica, too, a country with which we have traditionally had good relations, democratic traditions are deep and have recently been confirmed by the successful holding of national elections. We look forward to developing our contacts with the new Administration of President Monge.
In Honduras, the elections of last November have led to the installation of the new president and the ending of military rule. We welcome this and will do whatever we can to support that country in its struggle with severe economic difficulties, and with the danger of conflicts spilling over from its neighbours Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador.
The Government have been shocked and appalled by the reports of brutality and suffering in Guatemala and El Salvador. We share all the concerns expressed in the House and outside. We have forcefully condemned those who are responsible for acts of brutality no matter which side of the conflict they may be on. I repeat that condemnation now.
When security forces directly responsible to the Governments of Guatemala and El Salvador have committed these violations of human rights, we call on

those Governments to bring them under control and to ensure that those guilty of atrocities, whoever they are, are brought to justice. We have said this in the plainest terms to representatives of both Governments and they are in no doubt of our views.
We have also shown our concern in a practical way. The violence in El Salvador has produced large numbers of refugees and displaced persons. We have contributed to the efforts of the International Red Cross in El Salvador and to those of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We have done this both directly and through our contributions to the efforts of the European Community to provide assistance to these ends.
The miseries of these countries and the discontent caused by the long history of inequality have been ruthlessly exploited by Cuba with the backing of the Soviet Union. Violent revolutionaries have been supported by Cuba. They have been trained in camps in Cuba and Cuban advice is behind much of what they do. The Cubans have launched an extensive propaganda campaign on behalf of the revolutionaries. These activities are completely unacceptable and we call on Cuba to cease all forms of interference. A country that has as unimpressive a record as Cuba, in which all the unattractive features of totalitarianism are present in good measure, to such a degree that large numbers of the population are ready to risk their lives and livelihoods merely to escape, has no business to export its political doctrines or its recipes for economic disaster.
We believe that any solution to the conflicts in Central America must be political, not military. In this context, I draw attention to President Reagan's recent initiative for the economic development of the regions as a whole. We warmly welcome this as a positive step, and we hope that trade and private investment will be encouraged by the proposed measures. If some of the poverty, some of the inequalities and some of the economic difficulties of these countries can be tackled, stable Governments, justice and democracy will have a better future.
I turn to El Salvador. The history of this unhappy country has been one of unrelieved violence and cruelty, dominated by a few families who have abused their wealth and privileges and have ruled by military force. But there was a presidential election in 1972. It was won by Mr. Napoleon Duarte running as a Christian Democrat. The military frustrated the people's choice, imprisoned Duarte, tortured him and forced him into exile. Further military Governments followed, but at the end of 1980 Mr. Duarte was installed as president.
President Duarte's belief in the democratic process is not in doubt. From the moment that he took office he made clear his intention that elections should take place. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East said that the elections were an American idea. They are President Duarte's idea and have been ever since he has been president. It is by elections that his position or that of some other president can be legitimised. President Duarte is committed to a wide programme of land reform and economic and fiscal reforms.

Mr. Healey: Is not the right hon. Gentleman somewhat truncating his account of what happened? There was a coup d'etat in 1979 by a group of progressive young officers with wide support. However, within a year they had been displaced. The bulk of the progressive officers were removed and replaced by extremely Right-wing


officers. President Duarte was installed in the face of such social democrats as Mr. Ungo. There is no reason to believe that President Duarte, whatever his views in 1972, represents anything other than those of the junta who are his colleagues in the Cabinet.

Mr. Atkins: I shall make two points about that. The colleagues with whom President Duarte works are four—three civilian and one military. President Duarte recognises that because he was installed as President but not by the democratic process his position is not so democratically legitimate as it should have been. That is why from the moment he was installed as President he has believed that a president should be elected democratically. I do not think that the Opposition would dissent from that. That is a way of proceeding which the Opposition have advocated in all countries. My point is that it is President Duarte's own idea that it should happen. His position as a civilian President is difficult because he is opposed by both Left and Right wings. Right-wing death squads and elements of the security forces and the army have, as the House knows, been responsible for terrible atrocities. President Duarte is trying to bring them under control. That is a formidable task and he deserves all support.
On the other side is the FMLN guerrilla organisation, a coalition of five terrorist groups with Cuban assistance and advice which has been responsible for the murder of Ministers, the terrorising of rural areas and countless atrocities including the kidnap for ransom of two British business men. The hard-core guerrillas number at our best estimate some 5,000 out of a total population of more than 4 million.
As the House knows, President Duarte, faced with these intractable problems, has called for elections to a constituent assembly on 28 March. He has invited all parties to register and participate. The parties of the Left have declined to do so on the grounds that if they did their lives would be at risk. I do not believe that theirs are the only lives that are at risk in El Salvador—others are standing for election. To put it mildly, it is clear that the conditions for elections will be much less than perfect.
Therefore, we do not join with those who would discredit the elections even before they have taken place. The democratic path must be tried. We are not alone in this judgment. Last Sunday the Pope associated himself with a declaration by the Episcopal conference of El Salvador, which represents all the Catholic bishops in the country, supporting the election and urging all Catholics to vote. Our partners in the Western Alliance all agree that a political solution to the conflict must be found. I quote, for example, from the Foreign Minister of Canada who has said:
we continue to believe that elections in this country, imperfect as they may be, are better than none.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman, whom I know to be an enthusiast for political co-operation in Europe, must nevertheless face the fact that not one of our partners in the European Community is willing to send observers to the elections.

Mr. Atkins: Not all of them have been asked, but the hon. Gentleman is right that none has agreed to send observers. Nevertheless, President Duarte has invited observers to witness the election campaign and the election itself. As the House knows, the Government have decided that we should send two observers, subject to being

satisfied about their security. That decision has been construed by some as a gesture of support for the Salvadorean Government. It is nothing of the kind.
Let me make the Government's position quite clear. We want to see a political solution to the conflict in El Salvador. Democratic elections must be part of such a solution. We will not join those who prejudge the issue. Our gesture in sending observers is an entirely neutral act and is in no way a gesture of support for any of the political parties fighting the election. The fact that we are sending observers means that we want first-hand information about the situation. We want to see for ourselves, and we are in good company. The House itself has shown an interest in being better informed about developments in the region. Even as I speak, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is in Mexico and will be in El Salvador in 10 days' time to see and to find out for itself.
I do not pretend that the decision to send observers was an easy one. Some countries have accepted the invitation, including those of the Organisation of American States. Some have not. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, Canada has decided not to send observers, but it is very far from the case to suggest, as the Opposition motion does, that Canada asked us not to. Indeed Dr. MacGuigan has indicated that Canada would have been willing to participate in observing the elections on the understanding that one international team rather than separate national teams was intended.
Our observers will be two men of acknowledged integrity and entirely independent status. They are Professor Derek Bowett, QC, a renowned international lawyer and president of Queen's college, Cambridge, and Sir John Galsworthy, a former ambassador in Mexico City and a Spanish speaker. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to their sense of responsibility and public duty in agreeing to carry out what will inevitably be a difficult task.
We envisage that our observers will be in El Salvador for about two weeks to cover the election campaign, polling day and the immediate aftermath. They will be completely free to report without restriction on the circumstances in which they were allowed to observe the elections. They will be asked to report on the conduct of the elections, including the campaigning of the candidates, on the polling, and on the counting of votes. Most important, they will form a judgment as to whether the elections constitute a valid test of public opinion in El Salvador. As soon as possible after their return, they are to deliver a written report to my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and we shall arrange for that report to be published and made available to Parliament.

Mr. Healey: To offer a snap judgment on the election observer team, the two individuals seem very appropriate to the task. Nevertheless, the House is left in some perplexity. The right hon. Gentleman told us that President Duarte did not control even his own armed forces, never mind the death squads, although he was seeking to do so He reminded us that a Select Committee will be visiting El Salvador, but many groups have visited that country , including representatives of the World Council of Churches, the Baptists' Mission and Oxfam, and all have reported that it is not possible to hold elections in the present circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman has


confirmed that view in his remarks about the relative independence of the armed forces and the death squads, so why is he going through with this charade?

Mr. Atkins: It is because I prefer not to have my views made for me by people with strong views of their own before the event has taken place. It makes every kind of sense that we should send reliable, experienced observers to see what happens, to form a judgment as to whether the elections constitute a valid test of public opinion in El Salvador and report to us. We shall then be able to decide, not on the basis of people's ideas before the event but on the basis of hard information from intelligent men present at the time.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Before sending the observers, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what knowledge he has about the mechanics of running the elections? Will the hundreds of thousands of people who have moved to Nicaragua and Honduras be allowed to vote? What does he know about the proceedings? Like the Irish Parliament and many other groups who have gone to assess the situation, the Government should first have discovered the facts. They might then have agreed with Mexico and France that there should be a ceasefire before elections take place.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. It is because we want to find out exactly how the elections are run and what the arrangements are that we are sending people to observe them. I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's support.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the initiative of the President of Mexico. We share his desire to find the best way forward, but the ideas that we have heard from him so far are in general terms and a great deal remains to be elaborated. No doubt he will do that, but in the meantime his ideas have not received acceptance in El Salvador and the elections are going ahead. The President of Mexico may well have a substantial part to play in settling this unhappy affair, and I in no way seek to run down anything that he has put forward. Nevertheless, four weeks before the elections, his ideas are not precise, they have not been accepted and the elections are going ahead. Therefore, it seems to us that, although his ideas are well worth studying, and when we have obtained and studied the details we may well wish to support what he is doing, at the moment this,has no bearing on our decision to send observers to the elections.

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the spokesman of the Revolutionary Front made a statement in Mexico three days ago in which he supported the Mexican Government's proposals and substantially reduced the Revolutionary Front's previous demand for the restructuring of the armed forces, confining it to the sacking of some of the worst offenders. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that if the mission finds that elections cannot be held in such a way as to legitimise Mr. Duarte's Government the Government will seek to work with the Mexicans, the French, and other European Governments to achieve a negotiated end to the civil war?

Mr. Atkins: As I said at the beginning, it is and has been the Government's policy in any way possible to further the democratic process and to produce stability in

the area. What will happen after the elections, I cannot tell the House, because I do not know—nobody here knows—whether the elections will have been fair or not. That is the whole purpose of sending observers. As I said at the beginning, that has been the policy of successive Governments.
The Government deplore the forces, both Right and Left of the political spectrum, which frustrate the democratic process and in so doing cause misery, poverty and despair. We support those States which have achieved democracy, and efforts by the others to move in that direction. We are convinced that in El Salvador a political settlement is the only way to achieve a just and lasting end to the fighting.
To that end we are sending observers to the elections to see whether the elections will further that aim. We do not prejudge the fairness or the effectiveness of the elections. Let us wait until the House has the report before we make up our minds. We shall do that in the light of the observers' conclusions. When I ask the House to support the Government's decision to do this, I am sure that I shall carry with me everybody who believes in fairness and democracy and in the way of behaving to which we are all accustomed.

Mr. Healey: Before the Lord Privy Seal sits down, will he answer the questions that I put to him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has sat down.
There are only two hours left for this important debate and there is great pressure from right hon. and hon. Members wishing to take part. May I therefore appeal for short contributions?

Dr. David Owen: I am sure that the whole House shares the Government's concern about the situation in Central America. In discussing the region as a whole, it is right to say that there are some signs of optimism. The House should pay tribute to Belize's transition to an independent democratic State. It is a considerable achievement that successive British Governments have attached immense importance to buttressing the democracy in Belize, fearing that if a colonial situation had been allowed to continue it would have been exploited by the Cubans. In an attempt to anticipate that situation, successive Governments stressed the importance of independence. I wish that the Government of the United States of America had, at various times, understood the urgency of the matter and had been prepared to exert more pressure on the Guatemalan Government to resolve the problem of Belize. Belize is a good example of anticipation of political pressure and the development of a democratic independence.
Costa Rica is the outstanding example of a democratic country in the Caribbean basin. It now faces appalling economic problems. At least one benefit of the present deterioration in the Caribbean basin may well be that Western Governments will give the Costa Rican Government the aid that it needs without the fiercer conditionality that the IMF might have applied. It is vital that the Costa Rican Government should be given every possible support. That also applies to Honduras which, after a long and very difficult period, has moved to democracy.
The main strategic problem in the region is the necessity to face bluntly Cuba's motives. The main focus of Cuba's adventurism has to some extent switched from Africa to the Caribbean basin. We should delude ourselves, and fail to understand the genuine strategic anxieties about El Salvador and Nicaragua that are felt—not just in America but in many countries in Latin America—if we did not pay serious attention to the extent to which Cuba has changed the direction of its policy. Our central criticism of much of the policy being pursued, particularly by the new Administration, is that it fails to understand that the most important priority is to find a political solution which can then be buttressed with economic support.
In some ways, President Reagan's speech to the Organisation of American States was a considerable improvement. Not before time, he has increased the aid programme to the Caribbean region. His speech may also have opened the door to preferential trading arrangements that will enable some of the countries to sell their products to the United States of America in a unilateral opening of trade. It is vital that they should be able to do so. When the measures were first unveiled they may have appeared greater than they do now. I am worried that other Government Departments within the American Administration, and Congress, may narrow down the interpretation. If the United States of America does not recognise that there must—along with the economic measures—be a change in its political appreciation, that initiative will not develop and produce stability and security in the region.
I turn to two countries of considerable importance. After a difficult time under the Somoza regime—which no hon. Member would wish to support—Nicaragua has established a Government who are well to the Left and who contain strong elements of Marxism. The question is whether Nicaragua will go the way of Cuba. Will the Americans handle the Nicaraguan Government just as they handled the revolution in Cuba? It would be a tragedy if the United States of America were to push Nicaragua ever increasingly into the Soviet sphere of influence. It is not inevitable that it should move into that sphere. Of course, Nicaragua will remain non-aligned, but, properly and sensitively handled, there is a possibility that the Nicaraguans will choose a more genuinely non-aligned position that is closer to that of Yugoslavia than to that of Cuba. Cuba is not, in any real sense of the term, non-aligned.
El Salvador is a much more difficult problem. In 1978, human rights in El Salvador were so bad that the then Government felt that we had to stop selling Ferret cars to the Government of El Salvador. Because of our concern about the deteriorating situation, we acted in an unprecedented manner. In retrospect, that was the right decision. Since then, the situation has steadily and progressively deteriorated. All hon. Members want genuine elections to be held in El Salvador. However, the Government must decide whether, in present circumstances, it is possible to hold an election in El Salvador. The Lord Privy Seal made the under-statement of the year when he said that conditions for the elections were much less than perfect. Let us hear from one of Oxfam's most experienced field workers in El Salvador. His reports make clear
a grotesque and horrifying picture of terror and violence which has made normal life impossible for the majority of El Salvador's

people. Over 300,000 people, mostly the poor and disadvantaged, have taken the dangerous journey across the border to neighbouring countries. There is no shortage of documented reports of the harassment that they suffer on the journey with many being massacred before they reach safety.
Reports—not only from Oxfam, but from others—all too often make it clear that the Salvadorean security forces have perpetrated such atrocities. The Lord Privy Seal was quite honest when he said that he did not believe that President Duarte had full control over the security forces. I share the right hon. Gentleman's belief. We can no longer believe that President Duarte is in control of the military junta. Oxfam states:
Inside El Salvador it is reliably estimated that 250,000 to 300,000 people have been forced to abandon their homes and flee the threat of violence. A large proportion of these people have drawn together for mutual protection in 80–100 sanctuaries".
We have reports from people who have visited those sanctuaries: virtually everyone to whom one speaks talks of an experience of violence and horror that is guile shocking, with grandparents and babies murdered, mostly by para-military assassination groups. These are by no means circumstances in which it is possible to hold a fair election.
One of the things the Lord Privy Seal must consider is that in the United States at the moment there is considerable anxiety not that President Duarte will win but that we might see a Right-wing extremist element win, the unsavoury nature of which can hardly be over-emphasised. I do not believe that these conditions can be described as "much less than perfect". I feel that they are already intolerable.
There is a very interesting analogy with the Canadian situation. I think that Prime Minister Trudeau wanted to have an election. As the House knows, Canada has taken a very close interest in this region where it has tended to concentrate much of its aid and support. The Prime Minister wanted to send observers. In the last few days, however, the people who were sent to El Salvador came back and reported that these were no conditions under which to hold elections. In consequence, Canada has gone back on its earlier decision to send observers.
Mr. Wischnewski, who was Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in the German Administration and is a prominent figure in the German Social Democratic Party, described elections in the present conditions as "a farce" Anyone who knows him knows that he is a man who would not make such an allegation unless it was on very good evidence. Not a single European Community member State is sending observers.
Why is it then that the British Government have sent observers? The explanation from the Lord Privy Seal is, totally inadequate. The Government's decision has been condemned by practically every outside observer. The Observer newspaper called it a bad blunder for Britain. The Sunday Times has attacked it. Very few people in this country who have any understanding of present conditions in El Salvador can justify that decision.
The Lord Privy Seal says he thinks that it will help us to form a judgment. He must know that two observers, however distinguished, are simply not going to be in a position to cover the whole area of this country. The danger of giving anyone the impression that we would accept the outcome of this election is that we are effectively saying that this is a possible way out of the present dilemma. It is not. I believe that President Duarte knows this himself. I believe that even if he were to win


the election he would seek to attempt negotiations. However, this will be much harder once the elections have been held.
What I fear is that he will not have a mandate to conduct those negotiations. In my view, it would now be far preferable for the United States Government to follow the constant advice from Mexico and Venezuela—two countries to which they are close and which understand the Caribbean basin—to put the whole weight of American diplomacy behind a negotiated settlement.
There are amongst the El Salvadorean guerillas many political views, covering almost the whole spectrum. I think that the guerrilla movement, if it were to achieve the position of a Government—through the ballot box, one hopes—would be well to the Left, but that is not a situation that is either unusual or unique.
I am loth to make parallels with what has happened in Zimbabwe; I believe the situation is very different. Nevertheless, this business of trying to pre-empt negotiations by internal elections is fatally flawed, as it was in Zimbabwe.
There is a world of difference between the Government sending official observers and Members of Parliament, journalists and outside observers going. The Government will have a much greater degree of commitment to the election result. I ask the Lord Privy Seal, who has already isolated himself in the Community by sending observers, how much harder will it be for him and for the British Government to say that these are unfair elections if, for example, President Reagan's Administration were to say that they were fair? It is putting a very heavy burden of responsibility on two observers, however distinguished.
I welcome the fact that the report will be published and that the Lord Privy Seal has stressed the importance of a political solution. Nevertheless, I believe he will regret this decision to tie Britain into this election in El Salvador. It would have been far better, not to have washed our hands of it, but to have shown a greater recognition of the limited influence we possess, to stay within the broad span of opinion in Western Europe and in many other countries, and, rather than sending observers, to have committed ourselves to a negotiated settlement. There is no other solution. It would be far better also to commit ourselves to increasing aid wherever we can, to buttressing those three democratic States, Belize, Costa Rica and Honduras, and trying to modify the American position over Nicaragua.
I do not want us to supply arms to Nicaragua, as the French have done, but I hope we will make it very clear to the Nicaraguans that we are not putting them into the Soviet sphere of influence, that we wish to have relations with them, that we will have a distinctive and different position towards them from that of the United States and that we will not in any way use our connection with what are often termed, rather pejoratively, the "mosquito Indians" to encourage the destabilising of Nicaragua. It will be very helpful if the Lord Privy Seal or whoever winds up will give us a clear commitment that the British Government will not be party to any destabilising of the Nicaraguan Government.
There is only one way in which we shall stabilise Central America. It is through much greater economic aid. The poverty is appalling. It will also be necessary for all those Western nations that sell arms to stop pouring them

not just into Central America but into Latin America generally, because there is a grave danger of the wars and the armaments from Central America slipping further down into Latin America as a whole.
The way to outwit the Cubans and the Soviets is the way in which successive British Governments have now moved into Africa. It is to recognise national independence, to recognise that there will be revolutions and changes in the political atmosphere, Left and Right, and that it is not in our interests to distance ourselves from those movements or to force them to look only to the Soviet Union. It is in our interests to attempt a negotiated settlement, whether within existing Right-wing politicians in control of the Government, a junta or a regime, and to encourage the guerillas to come to the negotiating table, to compromise, to give up their arms, to have a ceasefire controlled by some outside monitoring force and to hold fair and free elections. This is what the Organisation of American States wants and this should be the policy of the British Government.

Mr. Julian Amery: We have a long historical association with the Caribbean basin. We still have important interests there. Nearly 2 million of our population have their roots in the Caribbean. Therefore, what goes on there must naturally and properly be a matter of considerable concern to us.
In the days when we had political responsibility we tried to help the evolution and development of the area by the unfortunately abortive West Indian Federation, by the Commonwealth sugar agreement, by preferential arrangements, some of which have been continued by the Lomé agreement, and by a military presence to help maintain stability.
President Reagan's Caribbean basin initiative seems to me to be in the tradition of what we tried to do on a smaller scale. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), unlike the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), made no reference to the President's initiative. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East may be right in saying that it is not on a big enough scale—only time can tell—but the total absence of any reference to it by him made me wonder why the Labour Party chose to have this debate at all. It did not seem to be to reinforce our natural concern about the Caribbean. It did not seem to be to come to the support of President Reagan's initiative, or—what an Opposition might well have done—to press my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to make a small contribution ourselves towards it.

Mr. Clinton Davis: When the right hon. Gentleman reads the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) he will see that in fact my right hon. Friend referred to the Caribbean basin programme.

Mr. Amery: If the right hon. Gentleman did so, it was so brief a reference that it would hardly have sunk into the consciousness of the House.
The gravamen of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and of what the right hon. Member for Devonport said, was to register a protest against our sending observers to the elections due to be held in El Salvador. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East produced the argument that there


was no register. That is a bit silly. We had two elections in Rhodesia—one lot which the right hon. Gentleman opposed and one lot which he approved of. There was no register in either case. By the standards of the observers who watched both, they were held with remarkable fairness and gave a pretty good idea which way the peoples wishes were going.
After all, one can boycott an election, and the boycott is also quite an important vote and can be registered as such by those who watch. There is by no means any certainty that intimidation, which will come from both sides, will affect the outcome all that much. But both right hon. Gentlemen said "No. What we need is a political settlement."
What is the alternative to an election? It is a negotiation between the junta and the guerilla bosses. Is that really a better way to proceed than having elections first, which will at least give us some idea where various people stand?
Neither right hon. Gentleman has much of an opinion of the junta. I do not have much opinion either of the junta or of the guerilla leaders, but I am not sure that I would like to see the fate of the Salvadorean people settled entirely between those two, with the United States, with perhaps the help of Mexico, on the one side, and the Cubans, with the help of the Soviets, on the other, trying to tell the people of that small country how their lives should be determined. I am not sure that the negotiated settlement in Nicaragua looks very healthy at present.
So why was this debate held? Almost every Latin American country, including Costa Rica, to which the right hon. Member for Devonport paid tribute, supports the holding of the elections. Mexico and Nicaragua—and Cuba, of course—are the outstanding exceptions. I think that I am right in saying that virtually all the other Latin American countries concerned have come out in support of holding the elections.
So why this debate? I shall tell the House. It has been held in an attempt to justify the growing neutralism of the official Labour Party, by trying to equate the breaches of human rights that are undoubtedly taking place in Central America with what has been going on in Afghanistan and Poland. It has not been said, but that is the underlying theme. That is why Labour tabled the motion.
Of course, every guerilla war is rough. I have taken part in such wars. Those in the resistance movements with which I worked were not all angels, and the Germans that we fought against were not all fiends, but there were plenty of fiends on both sides. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East talked about the fearful derogation of human rights in both Guatemala and El Salvador. It has been just as bad in Nicaragua, and over the years it was just as bad in Cuba. But, if we are serious, we are not talking about the situation in El Salvador alone. This is not a morality play; it is a global issue.
Let me explain what I mean. I do not know whether the Cuban people were happier under Batista than they are under Castro today. I do not think that anybody knows. I am inclined to think that they probably did better under Batista, but I may be wrong. What I do know is that when Cuba was under Batista it was not an international problem. Cuba today is a major military and political base for Soviet imperialism.
Nobody can question that. One has only to look at the 15,000 Cubans in Angola, the 15,000 in Ethiopia, the 4,000 in south Yemen and many others dotted about in other places. They are the Gurkhas of the Soviet Empire.

They are pretty strongly represented already in Nicaragua, along with North Koreans and East Germans. The right hon. Member for Devonport says that we might just pull Nicaragua back from the brink. I hope that he is right, but I am not sure that we shall do it by making concessions or urging concessions—it is not we who can make them—on our American allies at this stage.
There is a real danger that Cuban imperialism, which is a front for Soviet imperialism, will spread, and spread quite quickly, to Central America. Can we be indifferent to that? Of course not. Those who, consciously or unconsciously, serve the purposes of Soviet imperialism can welcome the development, but the facts are not in doubt about the extent to which Soviet influence has already penetrated—total control of Cuba, partial control of Nicaragua and considerable control of the guerrilla movement in El Salvador.
That is something to which the rest of us cannot be indifferent. We are allies and friends of the United States. That does not mean "the Americans right or wrong" any more than "our country right or wrong" is a good doctrine, but here is a forest fire burning at the Americans' back door. They face the danger. They run the risks. They have to play the hand, and if they play it wrong the loss will be theirs more than that of any others.
After his youthful flirtation with Communism, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East became almost a lackey of the United States. I am sorry to see him today moving—no doubt for internal, domestic reasons—to a position almost of neutralism. We would show ourselves poor allies and no friends of the United States if we did not offer it our support in the present crisis.

Mr. Stanley Newens: No one who studies the situation in El Salvador today can have any doubts about the appalling suffering which its people have experienced over recent years. Journalists, priests, politicians, relief workers and all those others who have visited the country tell a similar story of cruelty, murder, poverty and misery.
Of the population of about 4½ million, 300,000 are estimated to have fled abroad and 350,000 have become refugees in their own country. In the past two years about 30,000 people have been beaten, tortured, hacked, shot or otherwise cruelly done to death.
While the economy sags, savagery reins supreme, trampling underfoot all the civilised values that we in this House claim to stand for. If we have a spark of compassion or humanity in our being, our hearts must go out tonight to the poor and oppressed people of El Salvador. That is why I am proud that the Opposition tabled the motion.
Where the main responsibility lies is not in question in the eyes of the vast majority of observers. Bill Yates of Oxfam tells of the savage reprisals by the junta's armed forces. The Trocaire Catholic Agency for world development speaks of lists of alleged traitors published in a daily newspaper by the armed forces to be hunted down and eliminated. An Irish parliamentary delegation states that the security forces are primarily responsible for 36,000 murders. Even The Observer of 21 February, which places part of the blame on the guerrillas and their Christian Democrat and Social Democrat allies, says:
All impartial observers agree that the Duarte junta, the Salvadorean armed forces, which President Duarte nominally controls, and the death squads which work hand in glove with the army have been responsible for the bulk of the 30,000 killings estimated to have been committed over the past two years.
There can be no dubiety about what the vast majority of independent observers have concluded. Yet President Reagan in his speech to the Organisation of American States on 24 February, as in previous statements, puts the blame entirely on guerrillas
armed and supported by and through Cuba,
and fails to mention the atrocities of the junta. I am at least relieved that the Lord Privy Seal was prepared to concede that there had been some atrocities committed by forces under the control of those authorities.
Anyone who has looked into the previous statements of the American Administration on El Salvador knows how little reliance can be placed on much of what they say. On February 23 last year the State Department released a White Paper said to provide concrete evidence that outside forces were supplying the guerrillas in El Salvador. It was based on 19 of 80 documents alleged to have been captured from a guerrilla hiding place. The diplomat John D. Glasman, who was responsible, has now withdrawn a large part of what was said. The Wall Street Journal of 8 June last year—hardly a Left-wing source—commented:
Several of the most important documents were attributed to guerrilla leaders who did not write them. Much information in the White Paper cannot be found in the documents at all.
The Sunday Times of 14 June stated:
former CIA members have claimed the documents were forged.
It would be tedious, and I have not the time, to go through all the details. There can be no question, however, that the information which has been circulated by the United States to justify their claims that the Cubans are involved is totally discredited. That shows the lengths to which the United States Administration are prepared to go to justify their support for a vile and wicked regime.
There is, furthermore, genuine fear in the Caribbean that the United States may take military action against Nicaragua, Grenada, or Cuba. It is clear that vast amounts of money are being spent to destabilise those countries. United States Governments have a long record, of which they should be ashamed, of supporting reactionary dictators in Latin America.
Before we talk about aggression on the part of the Cubans, we should recall some Latin American history. The Cubans have never attacked the United States, but the Bay of Pigs assault was launched with the backing of the United States against Cuba. There are no Cuban forces in the United States, but there are United States forces on the soil of Cuba. Whatever people such as the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) say about the situation in Cuba, let them recognise, if they have any respect for morality, that Cuba is no longer the centre for prostitution, drug taking, corruption and gambling which flourished under Batista.
Those of us who claim to have decent moral standards should recognise these things instead of brushing them aside as some right hon. and hon. Members are inclined to do. The United States Government's policy is a patent effort to crush underfoot any attempt by the people of El Salvador to rid themselves of a vile dictatorship if that threatens United States interests. To hold elections in El Salvador in the circumstances which prevail at present is farcical, as every country in Europe save one has recognised by refusing to send observers. Britain is alone in Europe in agreeing to give some legitimacy to them by despatching observers for the event.
To conduct a fair election in El Salvador now is like trying to conduct a plebiscite in the middle of a civil war. As The Observer put it, to seek to establish the fairness of a Salvadorean election in 1982 is in the same realm of absurdity as trying to find out how much snow is falling in the Sahara desert or whether the Ayatollah Khomeini is a communicant member of the Church of England.
It is absurd that we should be sending observers to El Salvador. We know very well what the situation is at present. Why then are the Government to send observers? It has been rumoured that one reason is that Britain is seeking to inveigle the United States into making financial concessions on the Trident deal. It has been rumoured also that the Foreign Office has been seeking to influence the BBC and the IBA not to allow an appeal to be broadcast to raise funds for the victims of the war. These are serious charges and when the Under-Secretary of State replies I hope that he will make it clear that the rumours are untrue. If he does not, the Government will be even more discredited following the decision that has already been taken.
The position that the Government have adopted is characterised by double standards. The Government are insensitive to a situation that cries out for compassion. Their present stance justifies, and will only earn, that contempt of many in the Third world whom we should be seeking to make our friends. Britain should stand out for human values in other countries apart from Poland and the Soviet Union. I entirely support the criticisms which have been voiced on many occasions about what happens in Poland and the Soviet Union, but Britain must stand out equally strongly against the cruelly oppressed members of countries which are ruled by dictatorships nominally friendly to the West. In fact, this Government have double standards.
If the Government wish to retain a single shred of decency they should take their courage in their hands and stand out against the appalling and cruel deeds that are now being perpetrated in El Salvador, which they can genuinely do only if they cancel the decisions to send observers. They should tell President Reagan clearly that they will not turn a blind eye to murder and that they will not send observers who will serve only to legitimise the farce which is due to take place.
The Government should make it clear, on behalf of the people of Britain, that we stand out for human rights, even for tiny El Salvador. If the right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench do not have the courage to take that stand this evening, many hon Members will be proud to go into the Lobby to speak out for the British people as a whole in condemning the appalling state of affairs which presently prevails in El Salvador and on which this Government refrain from coming clean.

Sir Frederic Bennett: There were several moments during the speech of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) when, although one generally accepts what is his point of view, even I found myself a little staggered. For example, he said that there was no question—it was only an American invention—that Cuba was playing any role of a subversive nature in either Nicaragua or El Salvador. Even Mr. Castro would not agree with him on that. He recently claimed proudly that


he is playing a decisive role in those two countries. The hon. Member for Harlow finds himself to the Left of Mr. Castro which is an unusual position, even for him.
The hon. Member for Harlow also said that the Americans were in Cuba, referring to their base, which, as he knows, is perfectly legal and constitutional. He also said that there were no Cubans in America.

Mr. Newens: No armed forces.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman meant no Cuban armed forces and I am prepared to give him that point. There may not be Cuban armed forces, but I wonder whether he considered, when judging Cuba, that there are over 2 million Cuban refugees now in Florida. If his remarks are correct, it is they who should be helping to build a new Cuba rather than being refugees in the United States. That point is much more telling than the presence of a few thousand American troops in Cuba. Nobody could legally disallow their presence; they are there by treaty arrangements, in the same way that we and others countries have forces in various parts of the world. The real question we should ask is why there are more than 2 million refugees, who gave anything to get to the United States and escape from the Government of which the hon. Member for Harlow spoke so highly.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) spoke about oppression and said that he was unsure about whether the Nicaraguans and Cubans were happier now than under the previous dictatorial regimes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion was jeered for making such remarks. The 2 million who escaped do not sound overjoyed at the change. The easiest way to discover whether they approved of their Governments would be for them to vote. If we are not to have free elections in El Salvador, there might be free elections in Cuba and Nicaragua. Such elections would prove to all hon. Members and observers whether those people approve of the regimes. Surely that would be the best test, rather than making assertions that they are happy, which none of us is capable of substantiating. The people have so far had no such opportunity of expressing themselves.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion also spoke about the reasons for holding this debate now. I am always pleased when we use the Opposition's or the Government's time for debates on foreign affairs because there are too few rather than too many such debates. However, it is worth asking why, with the massive horrors now occurring in the world, we should choose tonight a very narrow issue, not just on El Salvador—which is important—but on whether we should send observers. The ready answer, at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion hinted, is that it is one subject on which every Labour Member can go into the Lobby. Anything in this debate that is a criticism of the United States of America and a defence of regimes that are unfriendly to Britain is sure to get the maximum support from Labour Members. It was a very wise choice by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Harlow said that he was equally concerned about events in Russia and Poland. He did not mention Afghanistan, but I shall give him the benefit of the doubt about that. It is odd that, on one of the rare occasions when we discuss foreign affairs, he did not say that El Salvador is important, but that the forgotten war in Afghanistan is more so, since Afghan refugees are more

numerous than the entire population of El Salvador. We could also discuss what is happening in the Soviet Union, Poland or Iran, where the Shah was replaced by a diabolical regime. I wonder whether Opposition Members believe that the Iranians are feeling more cheerful since the famous revolution took place.

Mr. Clinton Davis: rose—

Sir Frederic Bennett: I shall not give way. I have studiously avoided interrupting in the debate, because I believe that Back Benchers have a right to make the points that they wish.
It is a pity that the Opposition motion could not include a genuine debate on the real position in Cuba and in Nicaragua. There are two points of view about what is going on in Cuba, the amount of Cuban subversion and infiltration in the Caribbean and what is happening in Nicaragua. The hon. Member for Harlow read from some documents about what is allegedly happening in El Salvador and Nicaragua. I have read two sorts of document, and it would have been worthwhile to decide for ourselves, on the best information available, whether it is true that there is a massive arms build up in Nicaragua as a mainland base for a further Soviet-Cuban invasion.
The American reports about that are substantive. As we have heard, there are American advisers in El Salvador. No one denies the fact that in Nicaragua there are Russian, East German and many Cuban advisers. Yet they are not mentioned when we discuss affairs in that country. However, if we are to consider the matter impartially, it would be a good idea on another occasion to broaden the debate and not pick on one aspect of a highly complex and dangerous problem.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who opened the debate for the Opposition, made a rather freudian slip when he said that the revolution in El Salvador was not yet successful but that there had been successful revolutions in Cuba and Nicaragua. I wonder what he meant by "successful". Did he mean that the regime, which was highly unsatisfactory and distasteful, had been replaced by another no less distasteful dictatorship, or did he mean that he did not believe that Cuba or Nicaragua have bad Governments? Did he take into account the feelings of the people who live in the countries where those revolutions are supposed to have been successful?
I believe that the military, Right-wing or reactionary people have been guilty of the most appalling atrocities in El Salvador. However, from all the documentation that I have read—I am not as selective as some Labour Members—I know that an appalling level of atrocities has also been committed by the guerrillas with weapons supplied, undeniably, by Cuba through Nicaragua. I quoted Mr. Castro earlier. A leader of the Salavador guerrillas said only two or three days ago that he was proud of the fact that in the last few weeks of 1981 his guerrillas succeeded in killing 2,000 people. That was not a claim by myself but a proud admission of the success of their enterprise by the guerrillas.
I come finally to the narrow point of the elections. I cannot understand the point of view of Labour Members who always urge elections when it seems that they think that they will like the result but who always come later to take the opposite view. I am a member of the Council of Europe and week after week, month after month we were


told that the Turks must immediately have free elections. Curiously enough, the Left would earlier have been perfectly happy to have held elections in El Salvador to see what would happen. A strange turn around came, when the impression began to get about that, after all, the people of El Salvador might not want a Communist revolutionary Government and a Fascist type dictatorship, such as that which exists in Cuba, and nearly exists in Nicaragua. I wonder where, in Socialist thinking, the moment of parting came, when it was not, after all, a good idea to have free elections to let the people speak. It became so when, it seemed on the whole, that the Marxists would be able to get a better deal by negotiation, than by elections.
Over the years, these changes have come about, and have been followed on the Order Paper for longer than I care to remember. First, there is a dramatic urging of elections until the moment comes when those who advocate them think that they may not get a result that is satisfactory to themselves.
I tell my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal that no observer sent to El Salvador will be able to say whether the elections were fair. I use that adjective, because I do not believe that the correct conditions obtain in El Salvador because rival parties use pressure, threats and intimidation. What we would regard as a fair result is not conceivable—I doubt that it is in many countries. I do not care how many observers are sent, elections judged by the word "fair" in our sense are not available.
However, I support the view of my right hon. Friend and the action that the Government are taking. They will be able to obtain a much easier result. They will be able to say whether the elections, bearing in mind the number of boycotts taking place, the level of intimidation, and all other factors, indicate that a majority of El Salvadoreans have said, as far as they can, what they want their future to be. It is for that reason that we should support the elections, and send observers. I wish my right hon. Friend the best of all possible success in what is a wise and statesmanlike policy.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) in detail, save to remind him of one thing that has often been spoken of by Archbishop Helder Camara. In the context of America he has often spoken of the spiral of violence whereby the structured violence and pressure of poverty lead to a violent response on the part of the oppressed population, which leads to a further escalation of violence on the part of the forces of so-called law and order to maintain their position. Revolutionary violence is always caused by the violence of oppression, injustice and poverty. The sooner Conservative Members, who are opposed to revolutionary violence in Latin America, realise that, they will know that the causes of that structured violences against the poor and oppressed in that continent must be removed, the fewer will be instances of the kind of hypocrisy that we have had tonight.
I wish to speak about the position of refugees displaced from El Salvador and of those inside the country. The Lord Privy Seal, in opening the debate, referred yet again to the contribution that the Government have made to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I hope that, in winding up, he will say what representations the

Government have made about the position of the Salvadorean refugees in Honduras, about whom we have heard recently from the delegation from the British Council of Churches and other international observers who visited the refugee camps.
The violence in El Salvador is following the refugees across the border, and a refugee relocation programme is now taking place. There is concern among many relief workers that the relocation campaign is part of a military strategy to clear the border zone between Honduras and El Salvador, and that the removal of refugees and relief workers may be a prelude to the creation of a free fire zone along the frontier in which Salvadorean and Honduras troops could collaborate to contain the guerrilla war in El Salvador. I therefore ask the Government what representations they have made and what discussions they have had with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about what is happening.
I turn to the more general issue of the situation within El Salvador. As we heard, it is a country the size of Wales, and 36,000 people have been killed since the present Government came to power. In this debate, as in the official standard reply which the Foreign Office sends out to letters about El Salvador, we have the operation of a double standard. We are told in official Foreign Office statements that this Government have reminded the Government of El Salvador of their obligations not to murder their own citizens. Apparently, the Foreign Office does not send out letters reminding General Jaruzelski of his obligations. Clearly, there are double standards as between El Salvador and Poland or Afghanistan. I endorse all that was said on that subject.
The Prime Minister told the House, after appearing in a Ronald Reagan television programme for Poland, that there was no need for a "Let El Salvador be El Salvador" broadcast. She informed us that the elections in El Salvador rendered superfluous any further Government action to promote peace and justice in that country. The reason is, of course, that El Salvador is located in the United States' own backyard. Apparently, the Government are prepared to accept a bland statement that elections in the context in which they are being held in El Salvador are bound to be democratic. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), appearing on the television programme "Newsnight" the other week, said that it was important not to prejudge the elections, and tonight the Minister said the same thing. Apparently, the Government can prejudge the fact that elections will be democratic.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: The Minister did not say that at all.

Mr. Thomas: I have seen a recording of that television programme and the Minister said several times during the interview that the elections were democratic.
I refer the House to early-day motion 116, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends. It sets out the precise reasons why any elections in the present context of military activity in El Salvador could not be considered democratic. It is not merely an issue of the lack of electoral registers. The basic issue is that no candidate standing for the election has placed on the agenda a discussion of the causes of the conflict. There is to be no debate in the election in El Salvador on the gross inequality of wealth


and the institutionalised oppression and violence that have been part of the life of that country for 50 years. No candidate in the elections will discuss the deaths of 30,000 non-combatants and half-a-million refugees. Only the war itself, which is revolutionary violence and an uprising of last resort by the poor and Moppressed of El Salvador, has been the means of placing these issues on the international agenda. It is right that the House should discuss this issue and make it clear to the British Government and international opinion where we on the Opposition Benches stand on this issue.
It is not possible to speak in the context of the present war in El Salvador of representative elections. The interim archbishop, who stands in the place of the martyred Archbishop Romero, said that elections do not create democracy. It may be that the Government do not want to listen to the voices of theology and liberation in Latin America. The Government should understand that the Catholic Church, through people such as Archbishop Romero and his successor, speaks for the poor and oppressed in El Salvador. Such voices are often the only democratic ones that those people hear. The present archbishop has said that the elections are the manifestation of a democracy that is already at work.
In no sense can there be any such manifestation in this case. General Medrano, a leading member of one of the seven Right-wing parties that are contesting the election, said at a recent gathering of business men:
A purely military government does not suit our purposes since that would be badly received abroad … for the time being we must wear democrats' clothing …
Indeed, Signor Ungo, the president of the Revolutionary Democratic Front, has described the contest between the seven Right-wing parties as "fascist pluralism". That is what is being supported by Conservative hon. Members when they advocate sending observers to the elections. The Prime Minister has told the House that the Salvadorean Opposition has refused to take part in the election. We have heard the same view being expressed by Conservative hon. Members. How often must we tell the Government and the House that the Opposition cannot take part? All the major Opposition leaders have been named on a death list, publicised by the military. Parties cannot participate without furnishing the authorities with a list of supporters' names. To do so would be to place oneself on to a death list.
Even if parties were able to take part, how would it be possible to fight an election in a country that is fighting a war, and where a large proportion of the territory—at least about 30 per cent.—is out of the control of the present military Government and is therefore disenfranchised? The army will be overseeing the polling, and is under the command of the same officers who were responsible for the electoral frauds of 1972 and 1977. Will the two British observers be able to observe the conduct of those officers in the polling booths of the areas that are controlled by the Government?
There is no independent press, and there are no electoral rolls. We are concerned about the way in which voters will be identified. If voters are to have their hands stained with indelible ink after voting, that will ensure a high poll in the areas where the poll can take place. The army will be able to identify at a glance all those people who have not voted. Therefore the House cannot accept the present position in El Salvador as a context in which an electoral contest—in our democratic sense of the

word—can be held. Therefore, it is essential that the Government should now withdraw their proposal to send observers.
There is an alternative. The British Government can join with other States such as France, Ireland, Holland, Austria and Denmark in recognising the Salvadorean Opposition as a representative political force. It is important to rebut the allegation that was made in the House that the Revolutionary Democratic Front is constituted entirely of Left-wing marxists. The opposition in El Salvador is not Leftist in that sense. It is an extraordinarily broad church. It represents not only the leader of the Social Democratic Party of El Salvador but members of the Christian Democratic Party. It includes Leftist-oriented members of popular organisations. It is a coalition. To describe the Revolutionary Democratic Front as a coalition of Leftists is like describing as Leftist a British coalition of everyone from Tory "wets" to the Communist Party. That is not the position.
We must understand that it is a broad democratic movement, which has been driven to revolutionary violence because of the oppression in which it has operated. Therefore, the way forward for the British Government is to ensure that negotiations take place. Then we can talk of democratic elections taking place in a democratic context.
Do the Government agree with a statement made in Britain last Tuesday on television by American Defence Secretary Weinberger who said that he felt that there were no moral problems in supporting questionable Governments in Central America as long as they were "fighting Communism"? Is that the position of the British Government?
What position will the British Government take when the observers, if they decide to send them, come back and report publicly to the House that the elections have not been democratic? Will the Government take a new policy option and recognise that the violent oppression of the people of El Salvador must cease? It cannot cease by false democracy. It can cease only through the liberation for which Archbishop Romero and others have died.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I shall refer to a number of points made by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas).
Hon. Members have referred to Costa Rica. My first contact with Central America was at a Liberal conference in 1969 in Germany attended by the candidate for the Presidency of Costa Rica. I associate myself with hon. Members who have referred to the excellent record of democracy in Costa Rica. They have shown in an estimable way that there is nothing in the Central American situation that prevents the proper working of democracy. Therefore, I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said in urging economic support for Costa Rica and Honduras.
The Opposition motion, while referring generally to Central America, centres on El Salvador. The bulk of my remarks will be concerned with that. El Salvador has become a flail in the hands of those who are unsympathetic to Western pluralist democracy on a simple and, I am afraid, sound basis, as we have heard at Prime Minister's and foreign affairs Question Time—that it is inconsistent for us in the United Kingdom to condemn what is


happening in Poland or in Eastern Europe generally while at the same time our major ally, the United States, is propping up a regime that is responsible for horrifying breaches of human rights, to make no mention of killing on a savage scale.
If the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) had still been present I would have referred to what he said. We fail in our responsibility as a democratic House if we do not record our horror at the effect on individual men and women and their children of the harsh battle in El Salvador.
El Salvador is the crux of the debate. However, I must remark in parenthesis that United States policy in Guatemala is open to similar criticism. Criticism is an inadequate word—the policy is open to outright condemnation.
I speak as a friend of the United States, as a supporter of the Western Alliance, and as one who has no doubt about his preference for American democracy as against Eastern autocracy. As a Liberal I condemned Batista in Cuba, but I did not wish his replacement by a Castro. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Merioneth about the spiral of violence. However, I wonder whether the violence practised by the IRA is in his view structured, as is the violence in El Salvador.
I come to the nub of the matter. How should the large and relatively affluent democratic powers behave in their dealings with smaller States where things may go sadly wrong, as they have done in El Salvador, given that our capacity to stop change and maintain a status quo by military means is not matched by any easy equivalent capacity to promote democratic advance? That is our problem.
The Americans have simply taken the view that a Communist system, once established, because of its dictatorial nature, cannot be changed and so must be opposed, whatever objections there are to the regime that it seeks to supplant. As a Liberal I believe that to be a profoundly flawed analysis. We must face the fact that, military intervention excluded, we have a limited capacity to dictate to an independent country what it should do. We must be prepared to provide all possible support to democratic forces in undemocratic regimes. Bluntly, the Goverment should tell the United States that in supporting the people they are supporting in El Salvador and Guatemala they are assisting the advance of Communism. That is the effect of their actions, and it is counter-productive.
What should Britain do? First, we should tell the United States Government to revise their previous policy and to consider other possibilities. Secondly, we should take an initiative within the European Economic Community and build on what France has done with Mexico. That means withdrawing our observers. The Lord Privy Seal did not give an adequate response to my intervention earlier. We are isolated within the EEC. We are the only country in the EEC to send observers and to vote the way we did in the United Nations. That does not make sense. It is all very well sending these two estimable people as observers. I do not know the two people concerned, but I accept the assurance of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that they are good people.
I attended the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe elections. In practical terms, two people going to a strange country to

observe elections is an inadequate way of judging the system. It cannot be done effectively in that way. One cannot shuffle off responsibility on to two people, however estimable they may be.
Thirdly, if we are seriously interested in helping, rather that condemning, we must sit down with the Organisation of American States at the United Nations and work out what can be done. A democratic solution means more than disengaging and letting the parties fight it out. I take the Government's point in that respect.
The Americans can influence the situation effectively and we, in turn, must use all our influence on them to ensure that that is what they are doing. Unfortunately, that influence is being used in the wrong way. I do not believe that the Government, or the justified critics of what is happening, have properly thought this through. Sadly, the Government's approach is complacent.

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman refers to the importance of working with organisations such as the OAS. Does he recognise that the OAS voted in favour of sending observers to the El Salvador elections?

Mr. Johnston: I recognise that, and particularly that Costa Rica is willing to send observers. But I still maintain the view that the European Economic Community Governments, and Canada, have taken an opposite view. I, too, hold that contrary opinion.
The British Government have a remarkable ability to influence the United States. As the major advocate of Western pluralist democracy, the United States stands condemned in its attitude in El Salvador and Guatemala. We must do something positive to change that.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: We are never sure whether the alliance holds together in the Lobbies, but if the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) gave their parties' views, and they are joining the Labour Party in the Lobby tonight, it is sad for democracy in Britain that they intend to vote against an electoral process.
I spent over three years in Latin America and, as a result, I often meet people from Latin and Central America as they travel through London. They are people from all walks of life, of all political shades, and some with no political persuasion. They have three points which they put to me on the treatment of their region of the world by the British and Western European media.
Their argument has been "We do not seem to exist at all. You do not talk of us". Lately, they have been saying "Why do you only talk of the horrors, killings and disasters in Central and Latin America?" Over the last year or so, there has been incredible puzzlement, to put it mildly, as they ask "Do you in Western Europe and Britain believe that the only killing that is done in El Salvador is done by the Rightists, by the army and by the Government forces?" They find inexplicable the diet that we are fed in Western Europe.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and a number of other hon. Members have referred to parallels with Vietnam. This is a point commonly made in the United States. One close parallel with what is happening in El Salvador is the large propaganda battle that is being fought. I commend to hon. Members an


interesting article in Encounter last August dealing with the manner in which the Western media helped to lose Vietnam, and all that this has meant for the people of Indo-China. It seems to me that the same sort of developments are now happening on both sides, on the extreme Right and on the extreme Left, in El Salvador.
I offer only one example because time is pressing. We were told last December of a massacre in a place called Mozote in which it was said 920 people were slaughtered. A well testifed and, I think, unchallengeable investigation subsequently proved that never had more than 300 people lived in Mozote. Yet the Western world accepted that 920 of the inhabitants of that place had been massacred. We must work much harder to penetrate the propaganda fog and barrage to which we are subjected.
There is a deteriorating situation in Central America. To that extent, I agree with part of the motion put down by the Leader of the Opposition. The situation is, for example, deteriorating in Nicaragua. It seems that the 10,000 Miskitos have been shifted en bloc because they are said to be a security problem for Nicaragua. Some of the compassion sincerely expressed by the Opposition might also be appropriate in respect of those unfortunate inhabitants in Nicaragua. If we look at Nicaragua and consider elections, we should remind ourselves that the Sandinistas came to power—everyone condemns the Somoza regime—on a promise of elections. Not surprisingly, that promise has receded. There is now talk of possible elections in 1985. This situation has shades of Angola.
Much has been heard from Opposition Members about elections in what was then Rhodesia. No one from the Opposition Benches has questioned why the people of Angola have never had the opportunity of elections. In talking of the situation in Central America, we should remind ourselves of Cuba. Why do 1 million people leave Cuba? That in itself is testimony of the situation in terms of human rights.
Many words have been expressed in the media and in this House tonight about El Salvador. A surprising contribution has come from Oxfam. All hon. Members have presumably had the benefit of the propaganda barrage from an organisation calling itself the campaigns department of the information department of Oxfam. I feel, as someone who contributes to Oxfam, that the status of Oxfam under the Charity Commission is called into question if it indulges in this sort of political propaganda. It would not be the first charity to be so scrutinised. It seems correct that the Charity Commission should look into the matter.
The propaganda tells a story. Like all good propaganda, it tells very far from the whole story. It is known that El Salvador and other areas of Central America have terrible problems arising from the oligarchies and military regimes.
Before 1979, 38 per cent. of El Salvadoreans were landless. That is a terrible condition when there is no other form of employment. The House has not been told by the campaigning department of Oxfam or anyone else of the effect of oil prices on El Salvador, that whereas in 1977 they could buy a barrel of oil for 5lbs. of coffee they must now pay 26lbs. of coffee for one barrel of oil. Those are the problems with which any regime would have to deal with and operate under.
We have also not been told of the efforts made by the reforming group in the present regime. It has been helped

by Napoleon Duarte, who is the one man in El Salvadorean politics who has made an impact on elections. He has been twice elected as mayor of San Salvador and obtained 28 per cent. of the vote in the presidential election of 1972, unlike Mr. Ungo who is no longer in the country and who obtained only 1.7 per cent. of the vote. President Duarte and the reformist military officers put a remarkably far-reaching and ambitious land reform programme into effect in October 1979. Of course, that programme has run into serious trouble, but it has also been extremely effective—1·25 million formerly landless peasants now have land. That was 70 per cent. of the land, and the proportion of landless people has now been reduced from 38 per cent. to 11 per cent.
That is progress, and it is to be welcomed. I am deeply sorry that there have been no other words of welcome for those efforts. Of course, such efforts create enemies on both the Left and the Right. Owners of more than 500 hectares, who lost some property, are bound to oppose the land reform programme and they have worked against the Government and the reformist group. So also have the people of the Left, who do not want people to own land as they feel that landed people are not good territory for their political objectives.
We have not been told that the Right-wing organisation Orden was banned and that more than 1,000 members of the armed forces have been forced to leave because they have been found guilty of the oppression of the El Salvador populace. We have not been told about the code of conduct on human rights that the regime has sought to impose. No one denies that there are horrors, but let us understand the real efforts that are being made.
We should also understand that the elections are welcomed by the embryo trade union movement, the campesino movement of peasants in El Salvador, and all the bishops. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) was quite wrong in his remarks about the successor to Bishop Romero, as his successor has certainly welcomed the elections and has said that people must have the right to vote because that is the only way.
The former president of the International Court of Justice and former President of Peru, Mr. Bustamante, has also been in El Salvador recently. He is certain that the Salvadorean election commission is doing its job and he believes that the electoral process looks as if it is to be held cleanly and without tricks and that
it will be a valid expression of the will of the Salvadorean people.
Again, we have heard much about the fact that other Western European Governments are not joining us. Be it noted that, apart from the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, we are talking about members of the Socialist International who made up their minds months ago in many countries. For them, the Frente Democratico Revolucionario is the legitimate representative of the Salvadorean people. They do not care if the archbishop in El Salvador says that it holds the support of only a small percentage of the people of El Salvador. The Socialist International has made up its mind. The Labour Party, the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party have all made up their minds that they do not want elections because they know who are the representatives of the El Salvadorean people in the House of Commons. I offer one other group that will accompany us—the Christian Democrats in West Germany. They are sending observers, and it is right that we should do so.
The United States of America has faced a difficult task—as we all have—in sorting out the extreme Right and the extreme Left. However, we must try to give the democratic process a chance. The American Government recognise that. They also recognised their duties, not only to El Salvador but to Central America as a whole, in the imaginative package that the President offered on 24 February. If the Opposition are genuinely worried about the deteriorating situation in Central America, they will support that American initiative and will vote with us for democracy in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. David Winnick: One cannot help comparing the attitude of Conservative Members when we debated events in Poland with the attitude that they have adopted tonight. When we debated Poland, Conservative Members were full of indignation and anger at the imposition of martial law in Poland and the suppression of civil liberties—sentiments which we on the Opposition Benches shared. However, tonight Conservative Member after Conservative Member has tried to defend and justify the position in El Salvador.
There is a cruel, bloody and oppressive regime in El Salvador. The junta death squads carry out regular killings. There is no control or punishment of those thugs, who are usually connected with the army or security forces. We made our protest clear on Poland. We opposed what had happened and continues to happen in that country. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) said, we do not believe in double standards. That is the essential difference between the Government and the Labour Benches.
A revealing report appeared in a British newspaper that is not normally associated with radical causes. Last month the Daily Express carried a lengthy article by its correspondent in El Salvador. He wrote:
A corrupt, authoritarian, military junta hides behind the facade of a civilian Government—and every week there is a massacre to rival or exceed My Lai, in this region.
In the same article in the Daily Express—which I know a number of Conservative Members read regularly—the correspondent went on to say:
Archbishops are murdered, American nuns are killed. Whole villages are laid to waste … By far and away most of these atrocities are being committed by people who come under the umbrella of the American-backed Government.
Those are not my words but the words of the Daily Express correspondent in El Salvador.
The elections in El Salvador will be a complete mockery in view of the situation there. The death squads with their hit lists of the opponents of the regime are hardly conducive to free and genuine elections. A number of Conservative Members said that we on the Left do not believe in elections when we believe that we are likely to lose. Let me answer that point here and now. I speak, I am sure, for all my colleagues as well as for myself. I believe in meaningful, genuine elections—be they in Eastern Europe, in our own country, in America or Latin America. Win or lose, the right to hold free elections and the right of people to vote is an essential right that generations in this country in previous centuries fought so hard to win. It is not, and never has been our view, that we are against any elections where Left-wing parties are likely to lose.
The situation in El Salvador is such that there cannot be genuine elections. We know that to be a fact. Therefore, the Government and particularly the Prime Minister will be making a stupid blunder when they send observers to those elections and when Britain is associated with that mockery of an election to be held at the end of the month.
No doubt it will be said—if it has not been said already—that our attitude to El Salvador represents another outburst of anti-Americanism. However, those of us who strongly oppose American involvement in Vietnam were frequently accused of the same sin. Who was proved to be right? Did those such as myself, who consistently and strongly opposed the American adventure in South-East Asia, or those Conservative Members who backed the United States to the hilt, do more ultimately to defend America's reputation and integrity?
Again, the American Administration talk of an international Communist-organised military campaign. This time, it is said to be in Central America. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) seems to believe that there is not only an international Communist campaign, but a neutralist campaign as well. Apparently the Opposition have tabled a motion only because they are part of a world-wide Communist-organised plot. Apparently all the blame for the situation in El Salvador can be laid at the door of Moscow, East Berlin or Havana. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Afghanistan?"] When that aggression took place—[Interruption.] Having shouted out, hon. Members should have the courtesy to listen to my reply. I condemned the Soviet Union's aggression. I did not find reasons for justifying the situation in Afghanistan. That aggression by the Russians was morally wrong and they have not had much success in the past two years. What was done in Poland was also wrong.
As I have said, there are double standards. We condemn oppression, crimes and atrocities, but Conservative Members are very selective and that has been shown in this debate. There is no international Communist plot in El Salvador. However, the junta and the death squads have shown great cruelty, with savage repression, killings and atrocities. No Conservative Member has denied the existence of those death squads or the countless murders that have been carried out. At the heart of the situation lies the deep poverty experienced by the majority of those in countries such as El Salvador and the existence of a relatively few rich and corrupt families.
If what is understood as Communism or revolutionary politics wins any success in Central America, responsibility and blame will rest largely not only with the corruption and poverty in such places, but with the United States for the manner in which it has backed such corrupt regimes to the hilt. I wonder whether Cuba would have taken the road that it took if the United States of America had not always been associated with the most reactionary and backward regimes and dictatorships in that country.
The Soviet Union is reluctant to allow countries in eastern Europe to take an independent path. Equally, the United States of America is reluctant to allow Latin American countries to be independent. Time and again, the United States of America has been on the side of tyranny in Latin America. I have the greatest admiration for the democracy and traditions maintained within the


United States, but the American Administration should allow that type of democracy to travel onwards into Latin America.
I am very pleased indeed that there are growing numbers of Americans in the United States, both in and out of public life, who are totally ashamed of what their Government are doing in El Salvador. It was these types of American whose voices were raised loud and clear against America's involvement in South-East Asia. Nothing would be worse than for our country to be associated with the type of policy being pursued by President Reagan and the State Department in El Salvador. We must not allow this country to be contaminated by the kind of policy that successive American Administrations, including the present one, have pursued in Central America. It would be against our moral interest and certainly against our national interest.
This is why the Opposition motion should be supported tonight. We should make it quite clear that we dissociate ourselves from President Reagan and his disastrous and criminal policies in central America.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: The situation in El Salvador is, of course, far removed from the ideal for the holding of elections, but I am not persuaded by what I have heard in debate this evening that that is a reason for abandoning the idea of going forward with the elections. Nor do I believe that the Government would have been right simply to take note that these elections were being held and to refuse to send observers.
From conversations I have had with him, the Minister will know that I have had severe doubts as to whether we should send observers, but I believe, on balance, that it is right to do so if for no other reason than that it would give this country an opportunity to influence American policy after the elections have been held.
I do not believe that elections can simply be held and, no matter what the outcome, we can leave it at that. Equally I do not believe that, welcome though the initiative of President Reagan last week was on economic aid and the reduction of trade barriers, this is all we need to do. Nor do I believe that we must just give more military aid to the region and leave it there. There is a very strong argument for moving beyond the elections, beyond economic and military aid, and taking positive diplomatic initiatives.
I suggest that if the United States were to initiate some sort of conference, embracing the hemisphere of which it is the most important constituent member, it might be surprised to discover that there is an area of agreement among such diverse countries as the United States, Cuba and Mexico, not so much political as on the fundamentals of the continued existence of such diverse countries in that hemisphere.
I am sorry that President Reagan seemed to overlook the offer of an initiative by the President of Mexico when he spoke last week. If it is not possible for the United States to take the initiative of which I speak, which is a political one, to build on the elections and on the military and economic aid of the United States, then perhaps we could look to the President of Mexico to take some steps in that direction.
I hope that, in the short time that I have been able to detain the House, I have managed to persuade hon. Members on both sides that once the elections have been

held and economic aid has been introduced under President Reagan's plan, and with the military aid continuing, there is a positive need for a diplomatic initiative in the near future. For this I hope we can look to the United States, assisted by this Government, who will be in a position to assist because they have decided to send observers to the elections.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) for allowing me time to speak.
If such a debate as this had taken place in 1971 or 1972 it would have been at a time when it was possible to install President Duarte as the elected President of El Salvador, and much of the disaster that followed for that country during the past 10 years would have been avoided. It is always difficult to obtain the acceptance of both sides of the House for the kind of imaginative intervention which the Americans might then have been able to make to ensure that the military in El Salvador did not prevent Duarte from taking over in 1972.
I had the opportunity—I do not think that I can call it fortune—to go to El Salvador in 1978 to visit Archbishop Romero. After going there for the second time on Palm Sunday in 1980 for his funeral, I went to Washington to try to persuade the State Department to push for elections in El Salvador, at the time of the new junta following the Government of President Romero—no relation to the Archbishop. It was clear that, with the democratic forces—the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats—in Government, that was the time to have the elections. Sadly, the United States Administration believed that elections could not be held. Elections are now to be held, and it is clearly a matter of too little, too late, because Reuben Zamora and Guillermo Ungo are not taking part.
It is important to recognise that there are many people in the broad opposition groups who are not Marxists and who would like to find a way other than that advanced by the guerrillas and other fighters.
The question of the observers is a basic irrelevance to El Salvador, because the elections will not solve the problems. If elections can solve the problems in El Salvador, that solution will come when there has been national acceptance, covering the majority of people in the country and those who could represent them, that having elections without the warfare will lead to a satisfactory settlement, which even those who lose are willing to tolerate. At present it is clear that the far Left groups and the far Right groups are not willing to tolerate anything but a continuation of the fighting, bloodshed and indiscriminate slaughter.
The real question is how it is possible to build for the future. Recognising the limitations of the United Kingdom, I think that the important players are the United States, Mexico and Costa Rica.
I wish that Nicaragua could have set an example, because conditions there are not as bad as they are in El Salvador. There is no excuse for Nicaragua not to have held elections to show that many of the fears that have been expressed about that country are unjustified. If the regime in Nicaragua were willing to give an example, I believe many people in El Salvador would be willing to follow it, but that has not yet happened. We should maintain pressure to make sure that it does.
I hope that what President Reagan said last week about taking measures that are prudent and reasonable means that the American Government will move towards talks with the opposition groups. I would not ask them to sit down with Marxist guerrillas who are actually fighting the war, but I ask for the kind of contacts that we saw in a number of countries in Africa before independence. El Salvador has, of course, been an independent country for a long time, but we need to treat it as though it is not independent, because it and its people deserve to have the efforts of Europe, the United States and many of its neighbours in the region directed towards stopping the fighting and killing, which can be no satisfactory answer.
If the present elections led to the election of a group further to the Right than the present junta, that would be no solution. It would simply be a continuation of more of the same military oppression, going back to 1932, when the last bloody slaughter took place during an abortive uprising. I believe that if the extreme Left took over there would be the kind of development that has appeared in Cuba and may still occur in Nicaragua, which is not a very pleasant country for those who are not well in with the Government.
We need to detach President Duarte and those who support him from the ruthless people inside and outside the military. We need to make sure that those who are part of the FDR, the broad coalition on the Left, find that they can move away from the guerrilla groups that were operating at the time when the British bankers were kidnapped three years ago.
I hope that the question of the observers will not cloud the issues we need to take into account when discussing with the Americans and other friendly countries in Central America what can be done to help. The observer question is not the crucial issue. The crucial issue is how we can help, in our limited way, to stop the slaughter. If that does not happen with the elections, we need to build on what happens after the elections, as was so rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar.

Mr. Clinton Davis: At the very beginning of the debate the Lord Privy Seal said that he shared everyone's concern for those suffering from brutality. He claimed that the Government were in no way selective in their condemnation of that brutality and that they frequently called on Central American Governments to bring offenders to trial. With what effect? Has anybody been brought to trial in Guatemala as a result of his diligent efforts? We all know that that country has been condemned, rightly, as the worst violator of human rights, not simply in Central America but in the world.
It is ironic that President Reagan broke the United States of America arms embargo, which had been imposed by President Carter, by supplying $3·8 million worth of jeeps and trucks recently, on the grounds that the United States want to help the Guatemalan Government to defend peace and liberty.
The Lord Privy Seal then waxed eloquent about Honduras. Amnesty has recently expressed grave concern about the situation there—a continuing chronicle of arbitrary arrests, torture, kidnappings and killings by

Salvadorean and Honduran security forces, largely killings of people who are seeking to escape from the fighting in El Salvador.
What effect has his cry to bring offenders to trial had on El Salvador? When President Reagan was recently extolling the record of the junta, to justify increased arms supplies to El Salvador, 700 peasants were massacred in a single village. There were at least 12,500 murders in 1981 and no officers have faced trial for slaughtering civilians. The only officers who have been brought to trial are those who are alleged to have been implicated in the murder of four American nuns a year ago.
We should not be reticent about criticising the assault on human rights whether it is in Cuba, Poland, Afghanistan or in the areas of the world which are the subject of today's debate. All such assaults are to be condemned.
As far as the Caribbean basin programme is concerned, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said at the beginning of the debate, it is a great improvement on merely spending vast amounts on military aid to thoroughly discredited regimes. The sum of £350 million is to be provided by way of economic assistance, but the House will recall the qualification that my right hon. Friend expressed—I do not have to repeat it—and the credibility of that plan is also undermined by the litmus test of eligibility which is to be imposed, a blind adherence to the market economy practised by the Governments who are to be the recipients of that aid.
I believe that the Prime Minister of Barbados put it best when he said:
Legitimate objectives such as population control programmes, water and sewerage services, roads, seaports and airports cannot be left to private enterprise, and yet private enterprise is the major criterion behind the Caribbean basin programme.
Nicaragua is to be isolated, indeed subverted, clinically, coldly and heartlessly. There is not a word of condemnation from the Lord Privy Seal for the fact that the United States of America is training ex-Somozan guards in Florida and three other States, as my right hon. Friend said, without let or hindrance so as to enable them to conduct their operations againt Nicaragua from Honduras. What else would be their purpose?
The whole process is aided and abetted by Her Majesty's Government. It is grimly reminiscent of the destabilisation and the eventual murder of the Allende regime in Chile. The bitter irony of that is that the Government refuse to assist Nicaragua's economic recovery, including ECGD help, because it was the Somoza regime that ratted on its obligations.
Nobody in the debate has denied the saga of horror that daily occurs, and has occurred for a long time, in El Salvador. The overwhelming majority of deaths has clearly been occasioned by the Government-backed death squads, despite what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) had to say. The Lord Privy Seal spoke glowingly of Mr. Duarte when the whole world knows that he is the prisoner of the extreme Right in the junta. With a straight face the right hon. Gentleman said that the conditions for elections in El Salvador are "much less than perfect". I refer him to an article which appeared recently in the International Herald Tribune. It read:
But the armed forces, long a source of El Salvador's agony, are a state within a state. The generals have repeatedly and contemptuously ignored elected civil Governments; on one occasion they robbed even Mr. Duarte of the Presidency.


Therefore, it would be naive to expect the bloody conflict to be ended by the series of elections beginning in March. The country has seen plenty of votes, most of them crooked. It could even happen that the armed forces would rig the outcome to rid themselves of Mr. Duarte and put the extreme right firmly in control—the pattern now visible in Guatemala, where a similarly dubious election is also to be held in March.
In our view, the elections are bound to be a charade. That is not only our view; it is the view of every EEC country, the view of Canada and the view of many other countries. The example of Zimbabwe has been quoted, but let it be remembered that the civil war had been concluded by the time that the elections were held; albeit, the elections were held without electoral rolls.
The Government should not be joining in President Reagan's snub to President Portillo's bold and constructive initiative. They should be warmly welcoming it. They should not be suggesting that it is of no consequence because it is not precise. Indeed, one might accuse the Lord Privy Seal of exactly that offence. We should be saying "Yes, this is an initiative that promises reconciliation". We should not be joining in this charade of an election.
Above all, we should heed the fact that the real reason for unrest and civil war in Central America is desperate poverty and inequality. If we do not hear the voice of he hungry and the dispossessed, others certainly will. That should be the lesson of the Government instead of indulging, or helping to indulge, in an election that the late Samuel Goldwyn might have said is bound to be genuinely bogus.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): In the past two months I have heard the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) speak on three occasions. I heard him speak on Poland and on Canada and this evening he spoke on Central Latin America. His speech on Poland was impressive. His speech on Canada was also impressive. In comparison with some of his other speeches his speech this evening did not come in the top league.
There is not a shadow of doubt about the importance of this debate. However, it was extremely disappointing that when the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) rose there were only eight Labour Members present to listen to his speech. There is no doubt that there is profound concern in all quarters of the House and among the British public about the growing instability in parts of Central Latin America and the tragic level of violence, much of which stems, as we all agreed, from the desperate economic and social conditions and injustices that have existed in many Central Latin American countries and in many parts of those countries over the past several years.
There is an urgent need to have a clear understanding of the complexities of the problems in this part of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who knows it well and who has served in it, highlighted the problems extremely well. In certain countries in the past, such as El Salvador and Nicaragua, there have been dictatorships that have been exceedingly unattractive, to say the least. We also have countries, as many hon. Gentlemen said, which have hollow forms of democracy—some of them being very strong—for example, Belize, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama.

There is no simple or easy way out of the problems in that area. It is no good suggesting that there is a single solution to those countries' problems.
One of the biggest dangers is that we see the very unpleasant totalitarian dictatorships of the Right but do not see a volcanic eruption as an attempt to obtain change. There is so often a serious move towards equally unattractive dictatorships of the Left wing.
Friends of the people of that area must surely give whatever encouragement they can to constructive and peaceful change. Many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), highlighted the fact that Cuba, supported to the tune of £3½ million per day from the Soviet Union, is able to exploit dissension by violent means in that area. They are a destructive force, whereas there are other nations in the region, such as Venezuela, Mexico and other Western nations anxiously working for constructive change, whether European, Caribbean, the Organisation of American States or the United States of America.
We must all do what we can to foster peaceful change. The British Government's objective is to work for better economic development in the area. The British Government make a considerable contribution towards that. We must also work for political and democratic evolution and for general security and stability. That is why, as the right hon. Member for Devonport and other hon. Gentlemen said, that the Caribbean basin initiative would be warmly welcomed. The combination of aid, trade and investment with the United States and other neighbouring Powers is surely something that we should all warmly support.
I owe an answer on the allegations of secret Central Intelligence Agency files being used for subversion in Nicaragua. First, the British Government have no knowledge of such files. Secondly, recent reports of United Kingdom support for that sort of subversion, of which we have no knowledge, is totally and utterly without foundation. The House listened with interest to views expressed about the initiative of the Mexican President and we certainly note the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). Anything constructive should be carefully studied. However, there is still much scope for more detail than is presumably contained in the Mexican President's statement.
I turn finally to the question of observers—the main burden of the debate. Support was given by my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar, Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), Wycombe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) to our decision to send two distinguished observers to El Salvador. We know about the desperate circle of violence in that country.
However, our objective is to do what we can, in our own modest way, to encourage peaceful change. The Mexican President is determined that the objective should be to hold elections. We believe that that objective is a step in the right direction and that we ought to do what we can to encourage it.
We noted that Roman Catholic bishops in El Salvador, and the Pope over the weekend, supported the concept of holding elections at the end of March. We noted that the Organisation of American States decided to send


observers, supported by Venezuala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Columbia, Panama, and Ecuador, all of which are democratic countries. That is a constructive step.
It would be easy to sit back and do nothing; we could sit back like armchair critics and do nothing. However, we believe that it is far more constructive to visit those countries and see the situation for ourselves and not prejudge whether these elections are a fair and valid test of opinion in that country. It is totally wrong for anyone in the House and for so many Opposition Members to prejudge the position. With the greater knowledge gained after those distinguished observers have been to that country, we shall be better equipped to be constructive about the future.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 300.

Division No. 81]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams,Allen
Davis,Terry (B'ham,Stechf'd)


Allaun,Frank
Dean,Joseph (Leeds West)


Alton,David
Dewar,Donald


Anderson,Donald
Dixon,Donald


Archer,Rt Hon Peter
Dobson,Frank


Ashley,Rt Hon Jack
Dormand,Jack


Ashton,Joe
Douglas,Dick


Atkinson.N.(H'gey,)
Douglas-Mann,Bruce


Bagier,GordonA.T.
Dubs,Alfred


Barnett,Guy (Greenwich)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Dunn, James A.


Beith, A.J.
Dunnett,Jack


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Eadie,Alex


Bidwell,Sydney
Eastham,Ken


Booth,Rt Hon Albert
Edwards,R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Boothroyd,Miss Betty
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Bottomley,RtHonA.(M'b'ro)
Ellis, Tom(Wrexham)


Bradley,Tom
English,Michael


Bray,Dr Jeremy
Ennals,Rt Hon David


Brocklebank-Fowler,C.
Evans,Ioan (Aberdare)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Evans,John (Newton)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Ewing,Harry


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Faulds,Andrew


Brown,Ron(E'burgh,Leith)
Field,Frank


Buchan,Norman
Fitch,Alan


Callaghan,Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Fitt,Gerard


Campbell,Ian
Flannery,Martin


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Fletcher,L. R.(Ilkeston)


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)


Carmichael,Neil
Foot,Rt Hon Michael


Carter-Jones,Lewis
Ford,Ben


Cartwright,John
Forrester,John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foster,Derek


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)
Fraser,J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Cohen,Stanley
Freeson,Rt Hon Reginald


Coleman,Donald
Freud,Clement


Concannon,Rt Hon J. D.
Garrett,John (NorwichS)


Conlan,Bernard
George,Bruce


Cook,Robin F.
Gilbert,Rt Hon Dr John


Cowans,Harry
Graham,Ted


Cox,T. (W'dsw'th,Toot'g)
Grant,George (Morpeth)


Craigen,J. M. (G'gow,M'hill)
Grant,John (IslingtonC)


Crawshaw,Richard
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Crowther,Stan
Hamilton,James(Bothwell)


Cryer,Bob
Hamilton,W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cunliffe,Lawrence
Harrison,Rt Hon Walter


Cunningham,G. (IslingtonS)
Hart,Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cunningham,DrJ.(W'h'n)
Hattersley,Rt Hon Roy


Dalyell,Tam
Healey,Rt Hon Denis


Davidson,Arthur
Heffer,Eric S.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hogg,N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Holland,S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll)


Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)
HomeRobertson,John





Homewood,William
Parry,Robert


Horam, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Howells,Geraint
Penhaligon,David


Hoyle,Douglas
Pitt, William Henry


Huckfield,Les
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


Hughes,Mark(Durham)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hughes,Robert (Aberdeen N)
Race, Reg


Hughes,Roy (Newport)
Radice, Giles


Janner,HonGreville
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Richardson,Jo


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts,Albert(Normanton)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts,Allan(Bootle)


Johnston, Russell(Inverness)
Roberts,Ernest (Hackney N)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Roberts,Gwilym(Cannock)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robertson,George


Jones, Dan(Burnley)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Kerr, Russell
Rooker, J. W.


Kilfedder,James A.
Roper,John


Kilroy-Silk,Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Kinnock,Neil
Rowlands,Ted


Lambie,David
Ryman,John


Lamborn,Harry
Sandelson,Neville


Lamond,James
Sever,John


Leadbitter,Ted
Sheerman, Barry


Leighton,Ronald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland,Robert
Short, Mrs Renée


Lofthouse,Geoffrey
Silverman,Julius


Lyon,Alexander(York)
Skinner,Dennis


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)
Smith,Cyril(Rochdale)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McDonald,DrOonagh
Snape, Peter


McGuire,Michael(Ince)
Soley,Clive


McKay,Allen (Penistone)
Spriggs,Leslie


McKelvey,William
Stallard, A. W.


MacKenzie,Rt Hon Gregor
Steel, Rt Hon David


McMahon,Andrew
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McNally,Thomas
Stoddart,David


McNamara,Kevin
Stott,Roger


McTaggart,Robert
Strang,Gavin


McWilliam,John
Straw,Jack


Marks,Kenneth
Summerskill,HonDrShirley


Marshall,D(G'gowS'ton)
Thomas,Dafydd(Merioneth)


Marshall,DrEdmund (Goole)
Thomas,Jeffrey(Abertillery)


Marshall,Jim (LeicesterS)
Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)


Martin,M(G'gowS'burn)
Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tilley,John


Maxton,John
Tinn,James


Maynard,MissJoan
Torney,Tom


Meacher,Michael
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mellish,Rt Hon Robert
Wainwright,E.(DearneV)


Mikardo,Ian
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watkins,David


Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)
Weetch,Ken


Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby)
Wellbeloved,James


Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)
Welsh,Michael


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
White, J.(G'gow Pollok)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Whitlock,William


Morton,George
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Winnick,David


Newens,Stanley
Woodall,Alec


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Woolmer,Kenneth


Ogden,Eric
Wrigglesworth,Ian


O'Halloran,Michael
Wright,Sheila


O'Neill,Martin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Palmer,Arthur
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Park,George
Mr. Hugh McCartney.


Parker,John





NOES


Adley,Robert
Ancram,Michael


Aitken,Jonathan
Arnold,Tom


Alexander,Richard
Aspinwall,Jack


Alison,Rt Hon Michael
Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)


Amery,Rt Hon Julian
Atkins.Robert(PrestonN)






Atkinson,David (B'm'th,E)
Fox,Marcus


Baker,Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fry, Peter


Banks,Robert
Gardiner,George(Reigate)


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones,Tristan


Bennett, SirFrederic(T'bay)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Benyon,Thomas(A'don)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Goodhart,SirPhilip


Best, Keith
Goodhew,SirVictor


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodlad,Alastair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gow, Ian


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Grant,Anthony (HarrowC)


Blackburn,John
Greenway,Harry


Blaker,Peter
Griffiths,Peter Portsm'thN)


Body,Richard
Grist, Ian


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Grylls,Michael


Boscawen,HonRobert
Gummer,JohnSelwyn


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hamilton, HonA.


Boyson,DrRhodes
Hamilton,Michael (Salisbury)


Braine,SirBernard
Hannam,John


Bright,Graham
Haselhurst,Alan


Brinton,Tim
Hastings,Stephen


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawksley,Warren


Brotherton,Michael
Hayhoe, Barney


Brown,Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Heddle,John


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Henderson,Barry


Bryan,Sir Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt.Hon.A.
Hicks,Robert


Buck,Antony
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Budgen,Nick
Hill, James


Bulmer,Esmond
Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)


Burden,SirFrederick
Hooson,Tom


Butcher,John
Hordern,Peter


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Howell,Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hunt,John (Ravensbourne)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)


Chapman,Sydney
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Churchill,W.S.
JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kaberry,SirDonald


Clegg, Sir Walter
Kellett-Bowman,MrsElaine


Cockeram,Eric
Kimball,SirMarcus


Cope,John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cormack, Patrick
Kitson,SirTimothy


Corrie,John
Knight, MrsJill


Costain,SirAlbert
Knox, David


Cranborne,Viscount
Lang, Ian


Crouch,David
Langford-Holt,SirJohn


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Latham,Michael


Dorrell,Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dover,Denshore
Lee, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
LeMarchant, Spencer


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lennox-Boyd, HonMark


Durant,Tony
Lester,Jim(Beeston)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lewis,Kenneth (Rutland)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Eggar,Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Elliott,SirWilliam
Loveridge,John


Emery, Sir Peter
Luce, Richard


Eyre,Reginald
Lyell, Nicholas


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McCrindle, Robert


Fairgrieve,SirRussell
Macfarlane,Neil


Faith, MrsSheila
MacGregor,John


Farr,John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fell,SirAnthony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)


Finsberg,Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Madel, David


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Major,John


Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles
Marlow,Antony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall,Michael (Arundel)


Forman,Nigel
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fowler, RtHon Norman
Mates,Michael





Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Shelton,william(Streatham)


Mawby, Ray
Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)


Mawhinney,DrBrian
Shepherd,Richard


Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin
Shersby,Michael


Mayhew,Patrick
Silvester,Fred


Mellor,David
Sims, Roger


Meyer, SirAnthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Miller,Hal (B'grove)
Smith,Dudley


Mills,Iain(Meriden)
Speed,Keith


Miscampbell,Norman
Speller,Tony


Mitchell,David(Basingstoke)
Spence,John


Moate,Roger
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Monro,SirHector
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Montgomery,Fergus
Sproat,Iain


Moore,John
Squire,Robin


Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)
Stanbrook,Ivor


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stanley,John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Steen,Anthony


Mudd,David
Stevens,Martin


Murphy,Christopher
Stewart,A.(ERenfrewshire)


Myles, David
Stewart,Ian(Hitchin)


Neale,Gerrard
Stokes,John


Needham,Richard
Stradling Thomas,J.


Nelson,Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Neubert,Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Newton,Tony
Tebbit,Rt Hon Norman


Normanton,Tom
Temple-Morris,Peter


Nott, Rt Hon John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Onslow,Cranley
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thompson,Donald


Osborn,John
Thorne,Neil(IlfordSouth)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thornton,Malcolm


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Townend,John(Bridlington)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Parris, Matthew
Trippier,David


Patten,Christopher(Bath)
Trotter,Neville


Patten, John (Oxford)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Pattie,Geoffrey
Vaughan,DrGerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Percival,Sir Ian
Waddington,David


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wakeham,John


Pink, R.Bonner
Waldegrave,HonWilliam


Pollock,Alexander
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Porter, Barry
Walker, B. (Perth)


Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wall,SirPatrick


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Waller, Gary


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walters,Dennis


Rathbone,Tim
Ward,John


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Warren,Kenneth


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Watson,John


Renton,Tim
Wells,John(Maidstone)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler,John


Rhys Williams, SirBrandon
Whitelaw,Rt Hon William


Ridley, HonNicholas
Whitney,Raymond


Ridsdale,SirJulian
Wickenden, Keith


Rifkind,Malcolm
Wiggin,Jerry


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wilkinson,John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Williams,D.(Montgomery)


Rossi, Hugh
Winterton,Nicholas


Rost, Peter
Wolfson,Mark


Royle, SirAnthony
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Sainsbury,HonTimothy
Younger, Rt Hon George


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.



Scott,Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
'That this House expresses its concern about the situation in parts of Central America, endorses the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to encourage democracy and stability in the region,


welcomes the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government and this House to inform themselves about developments, and supports Her Majesty's Government's intention to help achieve a just and lasting end to the fighting in El Salvador.'.

It being after Ten o'clock,MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed by paragraphs (7) and (11) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) to put at that hour.

DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1982–83 (NAVY) VOTE A

Question,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1983 a number not exceeding 76,000 Officers, Ratings and Royal Marines be maintained for Naval Service,
put and agreed to.

DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1982–83 (ARMY) VOTE A

Question,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1983 a number not exceeding 186,000 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 60,000 for the Regular Reserve, a number not exceeding 88,000 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 12,600 for the Ulster Defence Regiment,
put and agreed to.

DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1982–83 (AIR) VOTE A

Question,
That during the year ending on 31 st March 1983 a number not exceeding 95,000 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 10,775 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 1,000 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force,
put and agreed to.

CIVIL SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1981–82

Question put,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,051,785,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1982 for expenditure on Civil Services, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 174 and 197:—
The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 249.

Division No. 82]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adley,Robert
Braine,SirBernard


Aitken,Jonathan
Bright,Graham


Alexander,Richard
Brinton,Tim


Alison, RtHon Michael
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brooke, Hon Peter


Ancram,Michael
Brotherton, Michael


Arnold,Tom
Brown,Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Aspinwall,Jack
Bruce-Gardyne,John


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Atkinson,David(B'm'th,E)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.


Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)
Buck,Antony


Baker,Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Budgen,Nick


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bulmer,Esmond


Banks, Robert
Burden,SirFrederick


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Butcher,John


Bendall,Vivian
Cadbury,Jocelyn


Bennett, Sir Frederic(T'bay)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Benyon,Thomas(A'don)
Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon,W. (Buckingham)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Best, Keith
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Bevan, David Gilroy
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chapman,Sydney


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Churchill,W.S.


Blackburn,John
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Blaker, Peter
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Body,Richard
Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Clegg, Sir Walter


Boscawen,HonRobert
Cockeram,Eric


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Conlan,Bernard


Boyson,DrRhodes
Cope,John





Cormack,Patrick
Kitson,SirTimothy


Corrie,John
Knight,MrsJill


Costain,SirAlbert
Knox,David


Cranborne,Viscount
Lang, Ian


Crouch,David
Langford-Holt,SirJohn


Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)
Latham,Michael


Dorrell,Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dover,Denshore
Lee, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
LeMarchant,Spencer


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lennox-Boyd,HonMark


Durant,Tony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Eggar,Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Elliott,SirWilliam
Loveridge,John


Emery, Sir Peter
Luce,Richard


Eyre,Reginald
Lyell, Nicholas


Fairbairn,Nicholas
McCrindle,Robert


Fairgrieve,SirRussell
Macfarlane,Neil


Faith, MrsSheila
MacGregor,John


Farr,John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fell,SirAnthony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)


Finsberg,Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fisher,SirNigel
Madel,David


Fletcher,A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Major,John


Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles
Marlow,Antony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Michael(Arundel)


Forman,Nigel
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mates,Michael


Fox,Marcus
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mawby, Ray


Fry, Peter
Mawhinney,DrBrian


Gardiner,George(Reigate)
Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mayhew,Patrick


Garel-Jones,Tristan
Mellor,David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Meyer, SirAnthony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Miller,Hal(B'grove)


Goodhart,SirPhilip
Mills,Iain(Meriden)


Goodhew,SirVictor
Miscampbell,Norman


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)


Gow, Ian
Moate, Roger


Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)
Monro,SirHector


Greenway,Harry
Montgomery,Fergus


Griffiths,Peter Portsm'th N)
Moore,John


Grist, Ian
Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)


Grylls,Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hamilton, HonA.
Mudd, David


Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)
Murphy,Christopher


Hannam,John
Myles, David


Haselhurst,Alan
Neale,Gerrard


Hastings,Stephen
Needham,Richard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Nelson,Anthony


Hawksley,Warren
Neubert,Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton,Tony


Heddle,John
Normanton,Tom


Henderson,Barry
Nott, Rt Hon John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow,Cranley


Hicks,Robert
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Osborn,John


Hill,James
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hooson,Tom
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hordern,Peter
Parris,Matthew


Howell,Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)
Patten,Christopher(Bath)


Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)
Patten,John (Oxford)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie,Geoffrey


Hunt,John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Percival,Sir Ian


Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pink, R.Bonner


JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey
Pollock,Alexander


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Kaberry,SirDonald
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kellett-Bowman,MrsElaine
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kimball,SirMarcus
Raison, Rt HonTimothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rathbone,Tim






Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Renton,Tim
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


RhodesJames,Robert
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


RhysWilllams,SirBrandon
Thompson,Donald


Ridley,HonNicholas
Thorne, Neil(IlfordSouth)


Ridsdale,SirJulian
Thornton,Malcolm


Rifkind,Malcolm
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Trippier,David


Rossi, Hugh
Trotter, Neville


Rost, Peter
van Straubenzee, SirW.


Royle, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, DrGerard


Sainsbury, HonTimothy
Viggers, Peter


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Waddington,David


Scott,Nicholas
Wakeham,John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave,HonWilliam


Shaw,Michael (Scarborough)
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Shelton,William(Streatham)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Shepherd,Richard
Wall, Sir Patrick


Shersby,Michael
Waller,Gary


Silvester, Fred
Walters,Dennis


Sims, Roger
Ward,John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Warren,Kenneth


Smith,Dudley
Watson,John


Speed, Keith
Wells,John(Maidstone)


Speller,Tony
Wheeler,John


Spence,John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Whitney, Raymond


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wickenden, Keith


Sproat,Iain
Wiggin,Jerry


Squire,Robin
Wilkinson,John


Stanbrook,Ivor
Williams,D.(Montgomery)


Stanley,John
Winterton,Nicholas


Steen,Anthony
Wolfson,Mark


Stevens,Martin
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


Stewart,A. (ERenfrewshire)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)



Stokes,John
Tellers for the Ayes:


StradlingThomas,J.
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Carol Mather.


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)





NOES


Adams,Allen
Cohen,Stanley


Allaun,Frank
Coleman,Donald


Alton,David
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Anderson,Donald
Cook, Robin F.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cowans, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Ashton,Joe
Craigen,J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)
Crawshaw,Richard


Bagier,Gordon A.T.
Crowther,Stan


Barnett,Guy (Greenwich)
Cryer,Bob


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Cunliffe,Lawrence


Beith,A.J.
Cunningham,G. (IslingtonS)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h'n)


Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Dalyell,Tam


Bidwell,Sydney
Davidson,Arthur


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Boothroyd,MissBetty
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bottomley,RtHonA.(M'b'ro)
Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)


Bradley,Tom
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Brocklebank-Fowler,C.
Dewar,Donald


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Dixon,Donald


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Dormand,Jack


Brown,Ron(E'burgh, Leith)
Douglas,Dick


Buchan,Norman
Douglas-Mann,Bruce


Callaghan,Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Dubs,Alfred


Campbell,Ian
Duffy, A. E. P.


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Dunn, James A.


Cant, R. B.
Dunnett,Jack


Carmichael,Neil
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Eadie,Alex


Cartwright,John
Eastham, Ken


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)





Ellis,Tom (Wrexham)
Marks,Kenneth


English,Michael
Marshall,D(G'gowS'ton)


Ennals,Rt Hon David
Marshall,DrEdmund(Goole)


Evans,Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall,Jim (LeicesterS)


Evans,John(Newton)
Martin,M(G'gowS'burn)


Ewing,Harry
Mason,Rt Hon Roy


Faulds,Andrew
Maxton,John


Field,Frank
Maynard,MissJoan


Fitch,Alan
Meacher,Michael


Fitt,Gerard
Mellish,Rt Hon Robert


Flannery,Martin
Mikardo,Ian


Fletcher,L.R.(Ilkeston)
Millan,Rt Hon Bruce


Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)
Miller,Dr M.S.(E Kilbride)


Foot,Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby)


Ford,Ben
Mitchell,R.C.(Soton Itchen)


Forrester,John
Morris,Rt Hon A.(W'shawe)


Foster,Derek
Morris,Rt Hon C.(O'shaw)


Fraser,J.(Lamb'th,N'w'd)
Morris,Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)


Freeson,Rt Hon Reginald
Moyle,Rt Hon Roland


Freud,Clement
Mulley,Rt Hon Frederick


Garrett,John (NorwichS)
Newens,Stanley


George,Bruce
Oakes,Rt Hon Gordon


Gilbert,Rt Hon Dr John
Ogden,Eric


Graham,Ted
O'Halloran,Michael


Grant,George(Morpeth)
O'Neill,Martin


Grant,John (IslingtonC)
Orme,Rt Hon Stanley


Grimond,Rt Hon J.
Owen,Rt Hon Dr David


Hamilton,James(Bothwell)
Palmer,Arthur


Hamilton,W.W.(C'tral Fife)
Park,George


Harrison,Rt Hon Walter
Parker,John


Hart,Rt Hon Dame Judith
Parry,Robert


Hattersley,Rt Hon Roy
Pavitt,Laurie


Healey,Rt Hon Denis
Penhaligon,David


Heffer,Eric S.
Pitt,WilliamHenry


Hogg,N.(EDunb't'nshire)
Powell,Raymond (Ogmore)


Holland.S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll)
Price,C.(Lewisham W)


HomeRobertson,John
Race,Reg


Homewood,William
Radice,Giles


Horam,John
Rees,Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Howells,Geraint
Richardson,Jo


Hoyle,Douglas
Roberts,Albert(Normanton)


Huckfield,Les
Roberts,Allan(Bootle)


Hughes,Mark(Durham)
Roberts,Ernest (HackneyN)


Hughes,Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts,Gwilym (Cannock)


Hughes,Roy (Newport)
Robertson,George


Janner,HonGreville
Robinson,G.(Coventry NW)


Jay,Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers,Rt Hon William


Johnson,James (Hull West)
Rooker,J.W.


Johnson,Walter (Derby S)
Roper,John


Johnston,Russell(Inverness)
Ross,Ernest (Dundee West)


Jones,Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Rowlands,Ted


Jones,Barry (Bast Flint)
Ryman,John


Jones,Dan (Burnley)
Sandelson,Neville


Kaufman,Rt Hon Gerald
Sever,John


Kerr,Russell
Sheerman,Barry


Kilfedder,James A.
Sheldon,Rt Hon R.


Kilroy-Silk,Robert
Shore,Rt Hon Peter


Kinnock,Neil
Short,Mrs Renée


Lambie,David
Sllverman,Julius


Lamborn,Harry
Skinner,Dennis


Lamond,James
Smith.Cyril(Rochdale)


Leadbitter,Ted
Smith,Rt Hon J.(N Lanark)


Leighton,Ronald
Snape,Peter


Lewis,Ron (Carlisle)
Soley,Clive


Litherland,Robert
Spriggs,Leslie


Lofthouse,Geoffrey
Stallard,A.W.


Lyon,Alexander(York)
Steel,Rt Hon David


Lyons,Edward (Bradf'dW)
Stewart,Rt Hon D.(W Isles)


Mabon,Rt Hon Dr J.Dickson
Stoddart,David


McCartney,Hugh
Stott,Roger


McDonald,DrOonagh
Strang,Gavin


McGuire,Michael(Ince)
Straw,Jack


McKay,Allen (Penistone)
Summerskill,HonDrShirley


McKelvey,William
Thomas,Dafydd (Merioneth)


MacKenzie,Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas,Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McMahon,Andrew
Thomas,DrR.(Carmarthen)


McNally,Thomas
Thorne,Stan(PrestonSouth)


McNamara,Kevin
Tilley,John


McTaggart,Robert
Tinn,James


McWilliam,John
Torney,Tom






Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Wainwright,E.(DearneV)
Winnick,David


Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Woodall,Alec


Watkins, David
Woolmer,Kenneth


Weetch,Ken
Wrigglesworth,Ian


Wellbeloved,James
Wright,Sheila


Welsh,Michael
Young, David (Bolton E)


White, J.(G'gow Pollok)



Whitehead, Phillip
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitlock,William
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Mr. George Morton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1981–82

Question,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £407,552,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 March 1982 for expenditure on Civil and Defence Services as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 173 and 179,
put and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1980–81

Question,
That a sum not exceeding £14,620,065·17 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended 31 March 1981, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 172,
put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, and Mr. Nicholas Ridley.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)

Mr. Nicholas Ridley accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1981 and 1982; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

Rampton Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having given me the opportunity to raise this Adjournment debate, and the Attorney-General for coming to the Chamber to answer it. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who are here to give me a great deal of support, as they have done throughout the long troubles of Rampton hospital.
It is nearly three years since a television programme called "The Secret Hospital" was broadcast by Yorkshire Television on 15 May 1979. It was, in effect, trial by television. To call it a show trial would not be too abusive a term. Before the programme, there had been several investigations into Rampton hospital. In 1968 the Dolphin report was published; in 1969 a Select Committee looked at the situation; in 1971 there was the hospitals advisory committee; and in 1973 there was the Elliott report. There were further reports by the General Nursing Council, the Butler committee and even The Guardian. Over a thousand visitors a year have visited the hospital, ranging from church councils to women's institutes. It could hardly be called a secret hospital. Although it was a top security hospital there was no secret as to the treatment given to the patients.
The Yorkshire Television programme alleged that patients had been kept naked and abused, had been beaten up and kicked with hobnail boots and had been strangled with wet towels to restrain them. Many other allegations were made against the staff, ranging from theft to other serious offences. The programme was based on evidence submitted, in the main, by two ex-patients—a Mr. Stephen Wilkins, who had been convicted of raping an 83-year-old lady and who committed two more murders after his release just after the programme was shown, and a Mr. Len Harding who had originally been in Rampton for one attempted murder and after being released then murdered an old lady for 2s.6d. He was sent back to Rampton.
The allegations were serious and caused a nation-wide sensation in May 1979. Every newspaper in the country and every television programme demanded an investigation. The staff were abused in the local pubs and shops and their children were spat at in the street and abused in the playground. None of them at that time could reply because they were governed by the Civil Service secrecy laws which prevented them from making statements on the truth of the allegations or of defending themselves at all. Because of the serious allegations, the Secretary of State for Social Services referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions and asked for a full inquiry into the organisation of the hospital. The Boynton committee was set up to report on every aspect of Rampton's organisation and administration.
The Boynton committee reported in December 1980, 18 months after it had been set up and 15 months ago. The committee did a good job of investigation. It recommended about 200 changes to the hospital, of which 195 were fairly trivial technical administrative changes which were in progress anyway. The vast majority of the evidence of the Boynton committee exonerated the staff


and found that there was no evidence of brutality or practices such as using a wet towel around the neck to restrain patients.
After the Boynton report it was thought that the Director of Public Prosecutions would wind up the investigations into the allegations. However, nearly three years after that television programme the Director of Public Prosecutions still insists on investigating allegations made during the programme and since by the staff. I have twice requested the Attorney-General to wind up the inquiry on the grounds that everything which could by now have been found out and traced would have been found out and traced. However, the Attorney-General refused.
Out of a staff of 600 at Rampton Hospital, 200 have now been questioned extensively about the allegations. About 30 of the staff were notified at one time or another that proceedings might be taken against them. Some of them were notified as long ago as August 1980. That notification is a blight on the person concerned and on the hospital. A person could spend as long as 18 months in that tense situation, never knowing when the phone will ring and whether they can book a holiday. Those notified do not know whether they can change their cars or take out hire purchase on a television, because they do not know what will happen in a couple of month's time.
That terrible form of mental torture affects marriages and the relationships and atmosphere in the hospital. There is also an effect on the livelihoods of those concerned. Once a charge has been made, the staff concerned are suspended on basic pay. They can lose anything between £125 and £300 per month in allowances for anti-social hours and overtime. That represents a savage attack on their standard of living before they have been found guilty. Indeed, four of the nurses have been charged and found not guilty. One of them lost £2,000 in allowances and pay that he did not retrieve, although he was found not guilty. Eventually, he had to sell his house and move into tied accommodation in the hospital. That is drastic and severe punishment for someone who was found not guilty.
Since the programme, between four and 16 top detectives have been at Rampton every day for almost three years, investigating the allegations. I do not know the cost of the inquiry, because it is impossible for us to ask questions. The questioning is being undertaken by the Nottinghamshire police. However, it must have cost £100,000 to carry it out. The police have travelled far and wide—to America and to the Continent—to check and cross-check the allegations.
Staff have been suspected of informing on each other and that has led to a bad relationship between those suspected—often unjustly—of being informers and others. Some of the alleged incidents occurred as long ago as 1961. Staff who have long since retired—one of them is aged 78—have been investigated. Staff have been placed in an intolerable position. Those who are being questioned are in day-to-day contact with their accusers. That is not involved in the normal questioning of suspects. Staff have to work with the patients who accused them of brutality. Naturally, some patients will taunt the staff, will refuse to do as they are told, and will threaten to make allegations against the staff and to have them taken to court if they try to impose any discipline.
Hon. Members must remember that there are 600 patients, with records of severe violence. Many of them have long records of murder, violent assault and rape. It is not unusual for staff to be attacked by patients. During

a three or four-year-period there were as many as 2,000 attacks on staff by patients and hospital treatment was required in 300 of those cases.
Relationships are being soured because of the investigations. The staff complain that police questioning of the patients has not been carried out properly. I merely repeat the allegations that have been made to me and do not comment on whether they are justified. However, last Saturday I met the staff and two of their solicitors, who backed up the staff's points. The staff say that patients have often been questioned for long periods without being informed that they could be legally represented.
The staff allege that some patients have been questioned as many as 23 times in three months and that they have been kept without food and water for several hours during questioning. It is said that patients are being returned to the wards late in the evening in a distressed state. The staff allege that even high-grade psychopaths have returned in the evening, distressed at the police's incessant questioning. In addition, it has been difficult to calm them after such questioning.
The staff also allege that several patients wanted to withdraw statements that they had made and that the police refused that request. I stress that those interviewed, cross-examined and used as witnesses have been very ill, and have backgrounds of being mentally disturbed. Therefore, there is great concern.
The Prison Officers Association, the union that the nurses belong to, alleges that the police themselves are fed up with the whole business, that they are saying in confidence or informally to the nurses that it is a waste of time, that it has gone beyond a joke, and that there is nothing more to be found by the incessant questioning.
The feeling is that the Director of Public Prosecutions was going to draw the examination to a halt last summer, but that for some reason there was a change of mind. The information that I been asked to put to the Attorney-General is that a Mr. Maitland of the DPP's office was suddenly taken off the investigations last summer, that a lady replaced him, and that the investigations continued.
The nurses allege—I am not saying that this is true; I am merely doing my job as a Member representing them, by presenting their allegations to the Minister in charge—that all too often there has been pressure by influential relatives of patients in Rampton, threatening to allege that there has been a whitewash or cover-up if further prosecutions are not brought, and if the present situation is allowed to continue. I think that one person has been convicted after three years of the examination.
Surely three years must be long enough for any investigation—where the suspects and witnesses are there, in the same place. There is no need to search for an assassin, as with the Yorkshire Ripper. There is no question of witnesses being dead, like the victims of the Yorkshire Ripper. The accusers and the accused are there together under one roof. Surely there is no reason why the end of the investigations should not have been reached after three years.
I have been putting serious allegations to the Attorney-General on behalf of my constituents. I am grateful to the House and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for this opportunity to put them, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, from neighbouring constituencies, for being here tonight and for the support that they have given me in the past.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has dealt with the problem. He will appreciate that I shall take a certain amount of care in replying to him, because a number of cases are pending.
I should like to summarise the facts, which have also been dealt with by the hon. Gentleman. Following the programme on Yorkshire Television in May 1979, the then Secretary of State asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate the allegations made on that programme. The Secretary of State also set up an independent review team under Sir John Boynton, which, in its report in 1980, made about 200 recommendations.
The central recommendation was the establishment of a review board, which was appointed last September. I understand that the board is making good progress to tackle the shortcomings identified in the Boynton report, and in implementing most of the specific recommendations.
The chairman of the review board and the management of the hospital are of course concerned about the length of the inquiry, just as the hon. Gentleman's constituents are, and they also have made representations on behalf of the staff.
I have been personally aware of the investigation since it was started, and I have corresponded about it on at least two occasions with the hon. Gentleman, as well as with other people. I should like to make it quite clear—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept it from me—that the Director of Public Prosecutions and I appreciate the problems caused by an investigation which occupies this length of time. We are conscious of the need to bring it to a conclusion, when the inquiry has been properly carried out.
The DPP has a senior member of his staff on day-to-day supervision of the case. The hon. Gentleman was right: it was a Mr. Maitland, who was replaced last autumn by another of the DPP's senior professional staff. That was a routine shift involving a number of members of the DPP's staff, which required Mr. Maitland to go to another department. That is the only reason for the substitution. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing sinister in it.
I am sure that the House would agree that it is unthinkable in a civilised society that, for whatever reason, we should fail to try to protect adequately the interests of those who are less able than us to look after themselves. That applies especially to such a hospital, where there is probably, in almost every case, a degree of mental instability.
However, we must face the fact that there were over 800 allegations, many of them of great gravity. Since then—as is inevitable in such an inquiry—during the investigation many more allegations have been made. What happens is that Mr. X is seen because the investigator has been told by Mr. Y, who has complained, that Mr. X saw the incident. The investigator goes to see

Mr. X, who says "Yes, I saw that, but you should know that I also suffered at the hands of a nurse". In a sense, matters tend to snowball.
It is appreciated that the complainants may have unjust or improper reasons to complain, especially in a community such as Rampton. However, we must be satisfied that in the end justice has been done. There are too many occasions—I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me—when the cry of "cover-up" is raised if one stops an investigation. If the allegation is serious, it must be examined. The trivial allegations are much easier to dispose of.
If one considers the matter impartially—I am sure that it must have crossed the minds of some of his constituents who work in the hospital—it cannot be in the interests of the staff or the patients that there should be any feeling that the matter has not been inquired into fully.
The present position is that four cases have been completed, involving five prison officers, four of whom were acquitted. There are four more cases awaiting trial, one due to begin shortly, with four defendants. There is a second case involving five defendants, a third involving two and a fourth involving one. The Director of Public Prosecutions is considering whether to prosecute in four further cases, which, if he does, would involve another nine nurses.
Thus, it seems that we are at last approaching the end of the investigation. I cannot guarantee that that is the sum total of cases, since the police investigation into some outstanding allegations has not yet been completed, but it looks as though we have reached the end. However, everyone is anxious and aware of the need to achieve finality. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Director of Public Prosecutions and I are as conscious of that as everyone else.
May I end by paying a tribute to the staff at Rampton hospital. Theirs is a most demanding task, and the way in which they care for so many of the most seriously disturbed members of our society is widely recognised in Britain.

Mr. Ashton: Although it may not be a matter for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department, is there any way in which the staff who have been acquitted can have some form of compensation for loss of earnings or for any monetary loss that they may have suffered while suspended from duty?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is right that it is not a matter for me. I am concerned only with the mechanics of the prosecution process. If someone who has been acquitted can show that he has been put to a loss for which he should be compensated, it is a proper case for the Home Office to consider. Questions should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o' clock.